OT: Another speed limit competitor

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Peter B
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> sothach wrote:
>> > Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>> >> I understand that speed limits aren't applied to bikes. How is this
>> >> of interest to uk.rec.cycling?
>> >
>> > Because motorists travelling at inappropriate speeds are killing us?
>>
>> Speedophiles posting at innappropriate frequency and agression are
>> disturbing us in the online world, though.
>
> Speak for yourself, they're not disturbing me and anyway you don't have
> to read their posts.

Could we please agree some code word to put in the subject line of
speed-limit threads so that the people who aren't interested can
killfile them?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does
not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected
to lead. He is quite simply a liberal"
-- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul - ***
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Matt B came up with the following;:
>> Surely not another solution which is _better_ than speed cameras ;-)
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4459056.stm
>>
>> "People are too used to being scolded by warning signs telling them
>> about lethal speed and driving. It's like 'tell me something new'. But
>> they're not used to having their wit engaged,"
>>
>> "There's an element of fun and mischief, but underneath is the
>> ambition to encourage people to re-examine how roads are used,"
>
> "It's this sense of entitlement that he says he wants to challenge -
> leaving a 4x4 blocking half the street is called parking but a couple
> of chairs and a magazine rack put in the same place is seen as a
> senseless provocation. "
>
> Maybe that's because a 4x4 can be legally parked on a road, whereas a
> few chairs and a magazine rack could be seen to be Fly-Tipping and
> illegal.

Nope. Actually neither a 4x4 nor any other vehicle can legally be parked
on the public highway. Parking any vehicle on any highway is obstructing
the highway and is a crime. Next?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; in faecibus sapiens rheum propagabit

 

[Alan J. Wylie]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:26:01 -0000, "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> said:

> On reflection, though, someone installing a sofa on a road is an
> interesting thing to point out, and part of the reason that cycling
> is so great.

http://www.cummfybanana.com/cars/car_casuallofa.htm

--
Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/
"Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
but rather when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

 

[the.Mark]

Danny Colyer wrote:
> wafflycat wrote:
>> Seems to be a bit of *carping* going on in this thread.
>> People should learn to keep a sense of *scale* and
>> *propoise-tion*, otherwise they could end up *netting* more
>> than they bargained for.
>
> There's always salmon who has to start on the puns, isn't
> there?

A man goes in to a fishmonger with a salmon under his arm and asks "Do
you make fish cakes?"
The fishmonger replies "No, sorry."
"A pity" says the man "It's his birthday tomorrow"
--
the.Mark

 

[[email protected]]

Paul - *** wrote:
> Matt B came up with the following;:
> > Surely not another solution which is _better_ than speed cameras ;-)
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4459056.stm
> >
> > "People are too used to being scolded by warning signs telling them about
> > lethal speed and driving. It's like 'tell me something new'. But they're
> > not used to having their wit engaged,"
> >
> > "There's an element of fun and mischief, but underneath is the ambition to
> > encourage people to re-examine how roads are used,"
>
> "It's this sense of entitlement that he says he wants to challenge - leaving
> a 4x4 blocking half the street is called parking but a couple of chairs and
> a magazine rack put in the same place is seen as a senseless provocation. "
>
> Maybe that's because a 4x4 can be legally parked on a road, whereas a few
> chairs and a magazine rack could be seen to be Fly-Tipping and illegal.
>

Oh yes, never thought of that.

The bloke in Oxford has a site. Another example for the Scrooges and
Killjoys:-
http://www.wormworks.com/roadwitch/pages/stopforsanta.htm

 

[Paul - xxx]

Simon Brooke came up with the following;:
> in message <[email protected]>, Paul - ***
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Matt B came up with the following;:
>>> Surely not another solution which is _better_ than speed cameras ;-)
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4459056.stm
>>>
>>> "People are too used to being scolded by warning signs telling them
>>> about lethal speed and driving. It's like 'tell me something new'. But
>>> they're not used to having their wit engaged,"
>>>
>>> "There's an element of fun and mischief, but underneath is the
>>> ambition to encourage people to re-examine how roads are used,"
>>
>> "It's this sense of entitlement that he says he wants to challenge -
>> leaving a 4x4 blocking half the street is called parking but a couple
>> of chairs and a magazine rack put in the same place is seen as a
>> senseless provocation. "
>>
>> Maybe that's because a 4x4 can be legally parked on a road, whereas a
>> few chairs and a magazine rack could be seen to be Fly-Tipping and
>> illegal.
>
> Nope. Actually neither a 4x4 nor any other vehicle can legally be parked
> on the public highway. Parking any vehicle on any highway is obstructing
> the highway and is a crime. Next?

Bzzzt wrong ...

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/22.htm#213

While it stresses a preference for off-street parking, which I agree with,
it does NOT say that parking on the road is an offence. If it were an
offence, the HC wouldn't, presumably, give suggestions and directions on how
and where to park on the road.

Unless you can prove otherwise.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 

[Paul - xxx]

Simon Brooke came up with the following;:
> in message <[email protected]>, Peter B
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> sothach wrote:
>>>> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>>>> I understand that speed limits aren't applied to bikes. How is this
>>>>> of interest to uk.rec.cycling?
>>>>
>>>> Because motorists travelling at inappropriate speeds are killing us?
>>>
>>> Speedophiles posting at innappropriate frequency and agression are
>>> disturbing us in the online world, though.
>>
>> Speak for yourself, they're not disturbing me and anyway you don't have
>> to read their posts.
>
> Could we please agree some code word to put in the subject line of
> speed-limit threads so that the people who aren't interested can
> killfile them?

Wasn't a subject line with the words 'speed limit' in it enough to give you
a clue?

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 

[Tony Raven]

wafflycat wrote:
>
> Oh I've never haddock-nuff of bad puns ;-)
>

Could you put that in whiting, I'm a bit hard of herring ;-)


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[David Martin]

Tony Raven wrote:
> wafflycat wrote:
> >
> > Oh I've never haddock-nuff of bad puns ;-)
> >
>
> Could you put that in whiting, I'm a bit hard of herring ;-)

Arggh, someone lays a bait for their chum and you swallow it hook, line
and sinker. Time to get out on teh bike, I'm feeling a bit chubby.
Better watch the ice - don't want to fall eel this close to christmas.
(Floundering for a few more puns here, better stop before you all get
too crabby).

...d

 

[John Hearns]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:16:47 -0800, David Martin wrote:

>
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> wafflycat wrote:
>> >
>> > Oh I've never haddock-nuff of bad puns ;-)
>> >
>> >
>> Could you put that in whiting, I'm a bit hard of herring ;-)
>
> Arggh, someone lays a bait for their chum and you swallow it hook, line
> and sinker. Time to get out on teh bike, I'm feeling a bit chubby. Better
> watch the ice -
Get your skates on then.

 

[wafflycat]

"John Hearns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:16:47 -0800, David Martin wrote:
>
>>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> wafflycat wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Oh I've never haddock-nuff of bad puns ;-)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Could you put that in whiting, I'm a bit hard of herring ;-)
>>
>> Arggh, someone lays a bait for their chum and you swallow it hook, line
>> and sinker. Time to get out on teh bike, I'm feeling a bit chubby. Better
>> watch the ice -
> Get your skates on then.

Do I see a ray of light that this thread is coming to an end. Shall we do a
dance of celebration? Shall we conger?

Cheers, helen s

 

[David Martin]

wafflycat wrote:
> Do I see a ray of light that this thread is coming to an end.

Thats no ray, it's a sun-bream..

> Shall we do a
> dance of celebration? Shall we conger?

That's sounding a bit off-quay. Do you need a piano tuna?

...d

 

[Andy Leighton]

On 23 Nov 2005 02:49:25 -0800,
David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> wafflycat wrote:
>> Do I see a ray of light that this thread is coming to an end.
>
> Thats no ray, it's a sun-bream..

Some dace you lot make me feel eel with all these puns. Ruddy hell,
I mean they are not brill or anything are they?

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Andy Leighton]

On 23 Nov 2005 02:49:25 -0800,
David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> wafflycat wrote:
>> Do I see a ray of light that this thread is coming to an end.
>
> Thats no ray, it's a sun-bream..

Some dace you lot make me feel eel with all these puns. Ruddy hell,
I mean they are not brill or anything are they?

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul - ***
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke came up with the following;:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Paul - ***
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>> Matt B came up with the following;:
>>>> Surely not another solution which is _better_ than speed cameras ;-)
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4459056.stm
>>>>
>>>> "People are too used to being scolded by warning signs telling them
>>>> about lethal speed and driving. It's like 'tell me something new'.
>>>> But they're not used to having their wit engaged,"
>>>>
>>>> "There's an element of fun and mischief, but underneath is the
>>>> ambition to encourage people to re-examine how roads are used,"
>>>
>>> "It's this sense of entitlement that he says he wants to challenge -
>>> leaving a 4x4 blocking half the street is called parking but a couple
>>> of chairs and a magazine rack put in the same place is seen as a
>>> senseless provocation. "
>>>
>>> Maybe that's because a 4x4 can be legally parked on a road, whereas a
>>> few chairs and a magazine rack could be seen to be Fly-Tipping and
>>> illegal.
>>
>> Nope. Actually neither a 4x4 nor any other vehicle can legally be
>> parked on the public highway. Parking any vehicle on any highway is
>> obstructing the highway and is a crime. Next?
>
> Bzzzt wrong ...
>
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/22.htm#213
>
> While it stresses a preference for off-street parking, which I agree
> with,
> it does NOT say that parking on the road is an offence. If it were an
> offence, the HC wouldn't, presumably, give suggestions and directions
> on how and where to park on the road.

The highway code is not the legislation. The Highways Act itself makes it
an offence to leave /anything/ - no exceptions at all, unless
specifically and individually permitted by the relevant local authority,
signed and coned - on the highway.

Any parking on the public road is /always/ illegal.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; 99% of browsers can't run ActiveX controls. Unfortunately
;; 99% of users are using the 1% of browsers that can...
[seen on /. 08:04:02]

 

[Simon Bennett]

Andy Leighton wrote:

> I mean they are not brill or anything are they?

Quite, they're complete pollacks.

 

[Dave Larrington]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> Any parking on the public road is /always/ illegal.

Does that mean we can get local authorities who introduce Residents' Parking
Schemes done for conspiracy?

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once. I
haven't been able to leave the house since.

 

[David Martin]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Any parking on the public road is /always/ illegal.
>
> Does that mean we can get local authorities who introduce Residents' Parking
> Schemes done for conspiracy?

No. Such bays are not then the highway. This raises interesting points
where the highway in question is over land not owned by the public but
by the property owners either side. This is acquired for use as a
highway, ie passing and repassing. Parking on this land would not fall
under the 'passing and repassing' so could be construed as trespass. It
would also not be permissible for the LA to designate that property for
any other purpose. So technically, if the ground belongs to you, and
the LA allow parking, you may have a case for reclaiming that portion
of the road for your own purpose... Time for a sofa in the road?

...d

 

[Dave Larrington]

David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dave Larrington wrote:
>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Any parking on the public road is /always/ illegal.
>>
>> Does that mean we can get local authorities who introduce Residents'
>> Parking Schemes done for conspiracy?
>
> No. Such bays are not then the highway. This raises interesting points
> where the highway in question is over land not owned by the public but
> by the property owners either side. This is acquired for use as a
> highway, ie passing and repassing. Parking on this land would not fall
> under the 'passing and repassing' so could be construed as trespass.
> It would also not be permissible for the LA to designate that
> property for any other purpose. So technically, if the ground belongs
> to you, and the LA allow parking, you may have a case for reclaiming
> that portion of the road for your own purpose... Time for a sofa in
> the road?

Round my way the Residents' Parking wossnames aren't in any kind of bays,
though, it's just at the kerbside. The only thing that marks out the areas
where a parking permit is required are the signs saying that a permit is
required. During the day, when they are usually not full of parked cars,
they are otherwise indistinguishable from any other "normal" road.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
They came for Eamonn Holmes; I think I'm right in saying that I
applauded.

 

[David Martin]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> Round my way the Residents' Parking wossnames aren't in any kind of bays,
> though, it's just at the kerbside. The only thing that marks out the areas
> where a parking permit is required are the signs saying that a permit is
> required. During the day, when they are usually not full of parked cars,
> they are otherwise indistinguishable from any other "normal" road.

The road is probably in public ownership or someone has managed to keep
a lid on the can of worms.

...d