Move to change law



In message <[email protected]>, Marc Brett
<[email protected]> writes
>Gawd, how depressing. Really. Why don't you just ditch your wretched motor and
>drive something that'll put a smile on your face again -- a bike!
I've done enough miles on bikes thank you. My "wretched" motor is much
more comfortable.
--
Clive.
 
Clive. wrote on 16/03/2007 15:22 +0100:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> dkahn400 <[email protected]> writes
>> The clue is in the word "application".
> Tell my Concise Oxford Dictionary.

My full OED trumps your Concise OED:

9. The action of making an appeal (obs.), request, or petition to a
person; the appeal or request so made.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
On 16/03/2007 10:00, MJ Ray said,

> When was the toll at the WsM end? I remember it at the Sand Bay end and
> there's nothing remaining on the road at the WsM end for a toll booth.

I couldn't say when the toll was at the WSM end, but I think it was just
slightly north of where the bridleway comes down to the road. It was a
long time ago though!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> writes
>>> The clue is in the word "application".
>> Tell my Concise Oxford Dictionary.
>
>My full OED trumps your Concise OED:
>
>9. The action of making an appeal (obs.), request, or petition to a
>person; the appeal or request so made.
I've shown it to my dictionary, it seem unimpressed. It still says
"application" laying of one thing on another.
--
Clive.
 
Clive. wrote on 16/03/2007 19:24 +0100:
> In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> writes
>>>> The clue is in the word "application".
>>> Tell my Concise Oxford Dictionary.
>>
>> My full OED trumps your Concise OED:
>>
>> 9. The action of making an appeal (obs.), request, or petition to a
>> person; the appeal or request so made.
> I've shown it to my dictionary, it seem unimpressed. It still says
> "application" laying of one thing on another.

You are clearly a few definitions short of a dictionary.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:40:24 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Clive. wrote on 16/03/2007 19:24 +0100:
> > In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> > <[email protected]> writes
> >>>> The clue is in the word "application".
> >>> Tell my Concise Oxford Dictionary.
> >>
> >> My full OED trumps your Concise OED:
> >>
> >> 9. The action of making an appeal (obs.), request, or petition to a
> >> person; the appeal or request so made.
> > I've shown it to my dictionary, it seem unimpressed. It still says
> > "application" laying of one thing on another.
>
> You are clearly a few definitions short of a dictionary.

No, I think he's just talking bollocks.

The compact oxford, which is a rather smaller dictionary than teh
concise, has "a formal request to an authority" as teh first meaning.
I believe Clive is simply selectively quoting. His dictionary
contains the definition he is neglecting to mention, he's simply
continuing with his normal silly habit of defending something
different when challenged on a point, and various people are (equally
sillyly) arguing with him.

For example, he says "road damage is proportional to tyre pressure,
which is force over area". Various people say "no it isn't, it's
proportional to load". He says "yes it is, it's force over area", and
then you lot argue with him.

Or alternatively, he says "my dictionary says application is laying
one thing on another". You lot then argue. He knows full well his
dictionary ALSO says it is a request, but he will continue to spout
'till he's blue in the face that it says laying one thing on another.

HE'S JUST A TROLL. STOP WRESTLING.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
Ian Smith wrote on 16/03/2007 20:47 +0100:
>
> No, I think he's just talking bollocks.
>

No "think" about it.

>
> For example, he says "road damage is proportional to tyre pressure,
> which is force over area". Various people say "no it isn't, it's
> proportional to load". He says "yes it is, it's force over area", and
> then you lot argue with him.
>

Cebon seems to have shut him up though.

>
> HE'S JUST A TROLL. STOP WRESTLING.
>

True.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 8:39:07 +0000, Dave Larrington wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Most food is zero-rated, but items demmed to be "luxury goods" aren't. VAT
> is applied to chocolate digestives, but not to plain ones.

Also VAT is payable on hot food but not on cold food - but hot and cold are
not according to how it is served but on how it's intended to be served.

So at my local bakers they do a tray of pies shortly before school dinner
time and put them to one side to cool off. Because they are intended to be
sold cold they don't have to charge VAT, even though the pies happen to get
sold before they've gone cold.

On the other hand, some pies are intended to be sold hot and are put in the
hot display for a while - if they are not sold in a short time then they get
taken out and allowed to cool off fully. Because they were supposed to be
sold hot, VAT is due even though they are sold cold.

Hence hot pies which don't attract VAT and cold pies which do !
 
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:24:47 +0000, [email protected] wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Such action does not mean that the character of the ability is
> equivalent. It is not the potential for removal but the process of
> aquisition which makes the difference; for cyclists they need only
> exist to have the right; whereas motorists to have permission thay
> must first ask, pay, and pass tests.
>
> A right is a right, where one is possessed of it or not; similarly a
> permission is merely that, nomatter whether one has it or no; it is
> the nature of the thing, not of the possession

A question then ...

If the government decided that cyclists must pass a proficiency test before
being allowed to cycle on the road, would that make the "right" to cycle any
less than it is now ?

I think there is the same right to drive as there is a right to cycle - it's
just that the government decided a long time ago to require that drivers of
cars should passa proficiency test before doing so. Not so much taking away a
right, but imposing conditions.

In reality it REALLY DOES NOT MATTER what you call it - the end result is the
same !
 
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:34:46 +0000, Simon Hobson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:24:47 +0000, [email protected] wrote
>(in message <[email protected]>):
>
>> Such action does not mean that the character of the ability is
>> equivalent. It is not the potential for removal but the process of
>> aquisition which makes the difference; for cyclists they need only
>> exist to have the right; whereas motorists to have permission thay
>> must first ask, pay, and pass tests.
>>
>> A right is a right, where one is possessed of it or not; similarly a
>> permission is merely that, nomatter whether one has it or no; it is
>> the nature of the thing, not of the possession
>
>A question then ...
>
>If the government decided that cyclists must pass a proficiency test before
>being allowed to cycle on the road, would that make the "right" to cycle any
>less than it is now ?
>
>I think there is the same right to drive as there is a right to cycle

Well, you'd be wrong then.
 
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:14:32 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>>I think there is the same right to drive as there is a right to cycle
>
>Well, you'd be wrong then.

In your opinion, maybe. But not as a matter of fact.

That's all this is, really, a matter of opinion.

It can easily be argued that driving is a 'right', once you have passed your
test, since it can quite reasonably be said that the purpose of taking a driving
test is to gain the right to drive a car.

What it isn't, though, is an inherent right. We have an inherent right to cycle
from the instant we pop forth into this world.

On the other hand, there is no inherent right to drive a car. You need to jump
through a few hoops to gain that right, and it can be far more easily removed.
 
Ziggy wrote on 18/03/2007 09:48 +0100:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:14:32 GMT, [email protected]
> wrote:
>
>>> I think there is the same right to drive as there is a right to
>>> cycle
>> Well, you'd be wrong then.
>
> In your opinion, maybe. But not as a matter of fact.
>
> That's all this is, really, a matter of opinion.
>
> It can easily be argued that driving is a 'right', once you have
> passed your test, since it can quite reasonably be said that the
> purpose of taking a driving test is to gain the right to drive a car.
>
>
> What it isn't, though, is an inherent right. We have an inherent
> right to cycle from the instant we pop forth into this world.
>
> On the other hand, there is no inherent right to drive a car. You
> need to jump through a few hoops to gain that right, and it can be
> far more easily removed.
>

I think everyone would say we have the right to breathe air. I doubt
that anyone would say we have the right to perform surgery on others.
The first is like a cycling - anyone is allowed to do it. The second is
like driving a car - you are only permitted to do so after training and
proving your competence and your permission can be removed if your
performance drops below certain standards.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Ziggy wrote on 18/03/2007 09:48 +0100:
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:14:32 GMT, [email protected]
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I think there is the same right to drive as there is a right to
>>>> cycle
>>> Well, you'd be wrong then.
>>
>> In your opinion, maybe. But not as a matter of fact.
>>
>> That's all this is, really, a matter of opinion.
>>
>> It can easily be argued that driving is a 'right', once you have
>> passed your test, since it can quite reasonably be said that the
>> purpose of taking a driving test is to gain the right to drive a car.
>>
>>
>> What it isn't, though, is an inherent right. We have an inherent
>> right to cycle from the instant we pop forth into this world.
>>
>> On the other hand, there is no inherent right to drive a car. You
>> need to jump through a few hoops to gain that right, and it can be
>> far more easily removed.
>>
>
> I think everyone would say we have the right to breathe air. I doubt
> that anyone would say we have the right to perform surgery on others.
> The first is like a cycling - anyone is allowed to do it. The second is
> like driving a car - you are only permitted to do so after training and
> proving your competence and your permission can be removed if your
> performance drops below certain standards.
>

Perhaps it's time for similar requirements to be applicable to all users
of the public highways - training, proof of competence and insurance
cover, complete with legal sanctions should you fail in terms of
competence or are unable to provide details of your licence or insurance
cover.

For cyclists to legally undergo some form of "driving test", or to
indicate that they are "learners", in anticipation of a pass, would
surely mitigate some of the criticisms levelled at them.
--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
®i©ardo wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Ziggy wrote on 18/03/2007 09:48 +0100:
>>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:14:32 GMT, [email protected]
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I think there is the same right to drive as there is a right to
>>>>> cycle
>>>> Well, you'd be wrong then.
>>>
>>> In your opinion, maybe. But not as a matter of fact.
>>>
>>> That's all this is, really, a matter of opinion.
>>>
>>> It can easily be argued that driving is a 'right', once you have
>>> passed your test, since it can quite reasonably be said that the
>>> purpose of taking a driving test is to gain the right to drive a
>>> car. What it isn't, though, is an inherent right. We have an inherent
>>> right to cycle from the instant we pop forth into this world.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, there is no inherent right to drive a car. You
>>> need to jump through a few hoops to gain that right, and it can be
>>> far more easily removed.
>>>
>>
>> I think everyone would say we have the right to breathe air. I doubt
>> that anyone would say we have the right to perform surgery on others.
>> The first is like a cycling - anyone is allowed to do it. The
>> second is like driving a car - you are only permitted to do so after
>> training and proving your competence and your permission can be
>> removed if your performance drops below certain standards.
>>
>
> Perhaps it's time for similar requirements to be applicable to all
> users of the public highways - training, proof of competence and
> insurance cover, complete with legal sanctions should you fail in
> terms of competence or are unable to provide details of your licence
> or insurance cover.
>
> For cyclists to legally undergo some form of "driving test", or to
> indicate that they are "learners", in anticipation of a pass, would
> surely mitigate some of the criticisms levelled at them.

Quite right, there are far too many pedestrians who ignore all the rules and
behave as if they own the road.
 
®i©ardo wrote on 18/03/2007 10:27 +0100:
>
> Perhaps it's time for similar requirements to be applicable to all users
> of the public highways - training, proof of competence and insurance
> cover, complete with legal sanctions should you fail in terms of
> competence or are unable to provide details of your licence or insurance
> cover.
>

Yep, pedestrian licenses is what we need ;-)


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
®i©ardo wrote:

> Perhaps it's time for similar requirements to be applicable to all users
> of the public highways - training, proof of competence and insurance
> cover,

I would certainly support some form of training for all cyclists - perhaps as
part of the National Curriculum.

> complete with legal sanctions should you fail in terms of
> competence

Already in place.

John B
 
John B wrote:
>
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it's time for similar requirements to be applicable to all users
>> of the public highways - training, proof of competence and insurance
>> cover,
>
> I would certainly support some form of training for all cyclists - perhaps as
> part of the National Curriculum.
>
>> complete with legal sanctions should you fail in terms of
>> competence
>
> Already in place.
>
> John B
>
....but rarely applied.

--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 1:14:32 +0000, [email protected] wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:34:46 +0000, Simon Hobson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:24:47 +0000, [email protected] wrote
>> (in message <[email protected]>):
>>
>>> Such action does not mean that the character of the ability is
>>> equivalent. It is not the potential for removal but the process of
>>> aquisition which makes the difference; for cyclists they need only
>>> exist to have the right; whereas motorists to have permission thay
>>> must first ask, pay, and pass tests.
>>>
>>> A right is a right, where one is possessed of it or not; similarly a
>>> permission is merely that, nomatter whether one has it or no; it is
>>> the nature of the thing, not of the possession
>>
>> A question then ...
>>
>> If the government decided that cyclists must pass a proficiency test
>> before
>> being allowed to cycle on the road, would that make the "right" to cycle
>> any
>> less than it is now ?
>>
>> I think there is the same right to drive as there is a right to cycle
>
> Well, you'd be wrong then.

And you win the this weeks "ignore the question when it doesn't suit your"
prize !

Is the "right" to ride a cycle enschrined anywhere - like a bill of rights as
they have in the US ? Not that I'm aware of. So it's a "right" that people
assume exists because in this country we still (almost) have a system where
everything is allowed as long as it's not prohibited.

Thus, since few restrictions are placed in riding of cycles, there is an
assumed "right" to ride.

The VERY SAME right used to apply to driving at one time. If you could afford
to aquire ue of one then you could drive one, so it could be argued that
there was the SAME right to drive as right to cycle.

The only difference is that at some point, the govenment decided to require
that people demonstrate a certain level of competence before driving. I don't
see that as removing a right, simply imposing condition on it's excercise.

So I repeat the question, if the government were to pass a law saying that
you needed to pass a proficiency test before riding, would that remove your
"right" or simply impose conditions ? After all, ANYONE would still be able
to ride unless they couldn't meet the practical requirements. Bear in mind
that right now, in the absense of any such control, there are people who
cannot ride a cycle because they cannot meet a minimum level of competency
(ie they can't make the thing stay upright !) - does that mean they don't
still have a "right" to ride ?

It's a moot question though. The end effect is the same whatever you call it
! It would be equally valid to say that it's a priviledge to be able to ride
a cycle and it's a priviledge to drive a car. In either case the government
can, if they so wish, set conditions to be met before doing either - they
just haven't imposed many conditions on riding a cycle, YET ! Just like other
threads arguing the distinction between "tax", "charge", "licence", etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Did the Earth move for Simon?
Replies
3
Views
292
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
A
How the media move on...
Replies
28
Views
438
UK and Europe
Don Whybrow
D
S
Cars edging out at junctions or to change lanes
Replies
20
Views
855
UK and Europe
LSMike
L
W
Learn English!!!! Change ur language and you change ur thoughts.
Replies
0
Views
360
UK and Europe
[email protected]
W
B
Radical gearing change: advice needed...
Replies
71
Views
2K
UK and Europe
David Martin
D
Top Bottom Back