P
M
MartinM
Guest
Paulmouk wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
on now!
> Folks,
>
> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
on now!
M
MartinM
Guest
M
Matt B
Guest
MartinM wrote:
> they mentioned a CTC petition against the proposals; anyone got any
> idea how to add to this?
Have you got access to the internet? Put your postcode in the box here...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303
--
Matt B
> they mentioned a CTC petition against the proposals; anyone got any
> idea how to add to this?
Have you got access to the internet? Put your postcode in the box here...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303
--
Matt B
M
MartinM
Guest
Matt B wrote:
> MartinM wrote:
> > they mentioned a CTC petition against the proposals; anyone got any
> > idea how to add to this?
>
> Have you got access to the internet? Put your postcode in the box here...
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303
thanks, took a bit of editing (the helmet content)
> MartinM wrote:
> > they mentioned a CTC petition against the proposals; anyone got any
> > idea how to add to this?
>
> Have you got access to the internet? Put your postcode in the box here...
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303
thanks, took a bit of editing (the helmet content)
P
Paulmouk
Guest
"Paulmouk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Folks,
>
> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
>
> Paul
Was only three minutes long and didn't say a lot. (I made a mp3 copy of it).
They invited responses by text and email or for full roundup on Friday's
prog.
Paul.
news:[email protected]...
> Folks,
>
> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
>
> Paul
Was only three minutes long and didn't say a lot. (I made a mp3 copy of it).
They invited responses by text and email or for full roundup on Friday's
prog.
Paul.
N
Nick Kew
Guest
Paulmouk wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
Mailbag and a practical lesson on ten minutes ago.
Today's reporter definitely got the message
--
Nick Kew
> Folks,
>
> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
Mailbag and a practical lesson on ten minutes ago.
Today's reporter definitely got the message
--
Nick Kew
P
Phil Barker
Guest
Paulmouk wrote:
> "Paulmouk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Folks,
>>
>> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
>> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Was only three minutes long and didn't say a lot. (I made a mp3 copy of it).
> They invited responses by text and email or for full roundup on Friday's
> prog.
> Paul.
>
>
There was more on PM tonight, I caught bits of an interview with a cyclist or
two, and a cycling MP. Available from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/
Phil
> "Paulmouk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Folks,
>>
>> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
>> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Was only three minutes long and didn't say a lot. (I made a mp3 copy of it).
> They invited responses by text and email or for full roundup on Friday's
> prog.
> Paul.
>
>
There was more on PM tonight, I caught bits of an interview with a cyclist or
two, and a cycling MP. Available from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/
Phil
S
Simon Bennett
Guest
Nick Kew wrote:
> Paulmouk wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
>> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
>
> Mailbag and a practical lesson on ten minutes ago.
> Today's reporter definitely got the message
But IMHO, the message (cyclists need better facilities) was wrong.
> Paulmouk wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
>> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
>
> Mailbag and a practical lesson on ten minutes ago.
> Today's reporter definitely got the message
But IMHO, the message (cyclists need better facilities) was wrong.
N
Nick Kew
Guest
Simon Bennett wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>
>>Paulmouk wrote:
>>
>>>Folks,
>>>
>>>Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
>>>Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
>>
>>Mailbag and a practical lesson on ten minutes ago.
>>Today's reporter definitely got the message
>
>
> But IMHO, the message (cyclists need better facilities) was wrong.
The message I heard, loud and clear, is cyclists should not be
put under pressure to use facilities that are, in the cyclist's
judgement, inadequate.
I emailed the following:
"To get another perspective on cycle lanes, focus on the journey
as a whole.
Consider a typical commuting journey of six miles (which I understand
is an average). In favourable conditions, that's about 15-20 minutes.
Now take the same journey on a typical cycle lane (assuming one
exists). Even without illegally parked cars, you have to slow right
down, or even stop, for perhaps every driveway you pass, just in
case it's the one a car, child or dog is about to shoot out of.
Your 15-20 minutes rises to over an hour.
Car drivers should consider how they would react to a proposal
to close roads to them, and restrict them to farm tracks."
--
Nick Kew
> Nick Kew wrote:
>
>>Paulmouk wrote:
>>
>>>Folks,
>>>
>>>Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
>>>Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
>>
>>Mailbag and a practical lesson on ten minutes ago.
>>Today's reporter definitely got the message
>
>
> But IMHO, the message (cyclists need better facilities) was wrong.
The message I heard, loud and clear, is cyclists should not be
put under pressure to use facilities that are, in the cyclist's
judgement, inadequate.
I emailed the following:
"To get another perspective on cycle lanes, focus on the journey
as a whole.
Consider a typical commuting journey of six miles (which I understand
is an average). In favourable conditions, that's about 15-20 minutes.
Now take the same journey on a typical cycle lane (assuming one
exists). Even without illegally parked cars, you have to slow right
down, or even stop, for perhaps every driveway you pass, just in
case it's the one a car, child or dog is about to shoot out of.
Your 15-20 minutes rises to over an hour.
Car drivers should consider how they would react to a proposal
to close roads to them, and restrict them to farm tracks."
--
Nick Kew
P
POHB
Guest
> There was more on PM tonight, I caught bits of an interview with a cyclist
> or two, and a cycling MP. Available from
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/
>
Found it at about 00:50 minutes in. Couldn't get the previous one coz the
listen again service was a bit broken yesterday. Seems like they got plenty
of responses from cyclists, quite encouraging really.
> or two, and a cycling MP. Available from
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/
>
Found it at about 00:50 minutes in. Couldn't get the previous one coz the
listen again service was a bit broken yesterday. Seems like they got plenty
of responses from cyclists, quite encouraging really.
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On 7 Mar 2006 10:25:21 -0800, "MartinM" <[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:
>> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303
>thanks, took a bit of editing (the helmet content)
Yes, I thought that was a bit weak too, so I am beefing it up with
another one which came to my notice recently where the parents of a
boy hit by a speeding out-of-control lorry with defective brakes are
also being told that it was his own fault for not wearing a helmet. I
will also be asking DfT where to get these lorry-proof helmets of
which they speak.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
<[email protected]>:
>> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303
>thanks, took a bit of editing (the helmet content)
Yes, I thought that was a bit weak too, so I am beefing it up with
another one which came to my notice recently where the parents of a
boy hit by a speeding out-of-control lorry with defective brakes are
also being told that it was his own fault for not wearing a helmet. I
will also be asking DfT where to get these lorry-proof helmets of
which they speak.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
P
Paul
Guest
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:45:54 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 7 Mar 2006 10:25:21 -0800, "MartinM" <[email protected]> said in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303
>>thanks, took a bit of editing (the helmet content)
>
>Yes, I thought that was a bit weak too, so I am beefing it up with
>another one which came to my notice recently where the parents of a
>boy hit by a speeding out-of-control lorry with defective brakes are
>also being told that it was his own fault for not wearing a helmet.
Feck's sake.
These helmets must be *amazingly* powerful if they can control lorries with
defective brakes.
I wonder I could get one to help me with my DTT reception.
On a more serious note; 'told' by whom?
The police: Very bad.
A judge hearing a resultant case: Appalling and worth appealing.
****** lawyer working for driver's insurance company: Par for the course.
wrote:
>On 7 Mar 2006 10:25:21 -0800, "MartinM" <[email protected]> said in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303
>>thanks, took a bit of editing (the helmet content)
>
>Yes, I thought that was a bit weak too, so I am beefing it up with
>another one which came to my notice recently where the parents of a
>boy hit by a speeding out-of-control lorry with defective brakes are
>also being told that it was his own fault for not wearing a helmet.
Feck's sake.
These helmets must be *amazingly* powerful if they can control lorries with
defective brakes.
I wonder I could get one to help me with my DTT reception.
On a more serious note; 'told' by whom?
The police: Very bad.
A judge hearing a resultant case: Appalling and worth appealing.
****** lawyer working for driver's insurance company: Par for the course.
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:17:31 GMT, [email protected] (Paul) said in
<[email protected]>:
>On a more serious note; 'told' by whom?
>The police: Very bad.
>A judge hearing a resultant case: Appalling and worth appealing.
>****** lawyer working for driver's insurance company: Par for the course.
The last. But you guessed, didn't you?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
<[email protected]>:
>On a more serious note; 'told' by whom?
>The police: Very bad.
>A judge hearing a resultant case: Appalling and worth appealing.
>****** lawyer working for driver's insurance company: Par for the course.
The last. But you guessed, didn't you?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
R
Richard
Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:17:31 GMT, [email protected] (Paul) said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>On a more serious note; 'told' by whom?
>>The police: Very bad.
>>A judge hearing a resultant case: Appalling and worth appealing.
>>****** lawyer working for driver's insurance company: Par for the course.
>
>
> The last. But you guessed, didn't you?
Name and shame the insurance company.
R.
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:17:31 GMT, [email protected] (Paul) said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>On a more serious note; 'told' by whom?
>>The police: Very bad.
>>A judge hearing a resultant case: Appalling and worth appealing.
>>****** lawyer working for driver's insurance company: Par for the course.
>
>
> The last. But you guessed, didn't you?
Name and shame the insurance company.
R.
I
ian henden
Guest
"Paulmouk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Folks,
>
> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
Is that a Time machine you are using? (your post is timed at 1716!)
news:[email protected]...
> Folks,
>
> Was announced at start of prog (at 1700).
> Now 1720 and It hasn't been discussed yet.
Is that a Time machine you are using? (your post is timed at 1716!)