Yet another speeding, uninsured, unlicenced, lying, killer motorist.

[Martin Dann]

Matt B wrote:
> Martin Dann wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> Simon Brooke wrote:

>>>> It may have escaped you notice, but car drivers aren't provided with
>>>> such a
>>>> path, either.
>>>
>>> Are you familiar with the kerbed, lined, signed and signalled
>>> artefacts known as "roads"?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> Are you saying that roads are just for motor vehicles?
>
> No.

So what you are saying is the exact opposite of what you just typed.

> I'm saying that our society has given motorists de facto priority
> on roads.

Society has not given motorists priority on our roads, it is a minority
of selfish drivers who are unable to control their vehicles within the
fairly lax rules given to them. e.g.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/6385151.stm
BBC NEWS | Man, 83, goes the wrong way on M6


Imagine the chaos if you took away what lax rules there already are.

Martin.

 

[Tony B]

Matt B wrote:
> We don't see the same faults in the same people when they are walking.

Generally not, but increasingly the selfish and belligerent attitude
that is now prevalent on our roads is becoming apparent in other areas
of life. Try shopping in a supermarket at busy times, the same
behaviours are there. What I don't understand is why other countries
seem so different. I feel I must include Ireland, Wales and Scotland in
the "other countries" category as it appears to be more of an English
disease. YMMV.

Tony B

 

[Matt B]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
> ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>
>> -You are given a demarked "road", dedicated to your use, and largely
>> kept clear of pedestrians - you don't need to look or negotiate
>> right-of-way.
>
> No, the roads are provided for and dedicated to the use of pedestrians.

How often do you see pedestrians using the roads - especially where
there is a footway?

> That is the law. The only roads dedicated to the use of motorvehicles are
> the aptly named 'motorways',

Yes, in theory. Now look at the practice. How often do streams of
traffic stop (without an order from lights, signs, or markings) for
pedestrians to stroll in, or even cross, the road?

> and if all the motorists stuck to the
> motorways we'd all be a lot better off.

Here here. And roll on the day when enough of a motorway "network" is
provided to make that practical.

--
Matt B

 

[Simon Dean]

[email protected] wrote:
> The only thing that makes humans behave properly in relation to one
> another is fear of the concequences on what ever level that might be.

I feel you're talking about punitive punishment consequences. Human
nature is now flawed. We have no responsibility. Shouldn't we be fearing
the consequences of killing someone or ourselves?

 

[Simon Dean]

spindrift wrote:

>
> There's something very wrong here. It is impossible to kill a cyclist
> whilst overtaking if the HC is adhered to. It simply cannot be done if
> enough space is left. The roads are lawless, people speed with
> impunity because the chances of getting caught are so slim. This is
> utterly depressing. Maybe cyclists could attend court on march 1st?
>
>

Im all for punishment and stopping the woman from driving, but I stop
short at supporting her being booted out of her job.

It just seems vindictive and spiteful and nasty. Im by no means
justifying her behaviour though...

Cya
Simon

 

[Matt B]

Tony B wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> We don't see the same faults in the same people when they are walking.
>
> Generally not, but increasingly the selfish and belligerent attitude
> that is now prevalent on our roads is becoming apparent in other areas
> of life. Try shopping in a supermarket at busy times, the same
> behaviours are there. What I don't understand is why other countries
> seem so different. I feel I must include Ireland, Wales and Scotland in
> the "other countries" category as it appears to be more of an English
> disease. YMMV.

We need to look at the way we treat our citizens. We come bottom of
many international league tables. We are very near the bottom of
Privacy International's "privacy index". We are placed in the bottom
"Endemic surveillance societies" category along with Singapore, Russia,
Malaysia and the PRC. We were awarded the accolade of the worst of the
21 developed countries by Unicef in their "child well-being" table. We
have the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Western Europe. The
Institute of Alcohol studies put the UK amongst the worst in Europe for
binge-drinking. We come high in the league of young smokers too.

Is it mere coincidence that we also have the most illiberal approach,
and the strictest regulations governing these issues too?

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

Martin Dann wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>>>>> It may have escaped you notice, but car drivers aren't provided
>>>>> with such a
>>>>> path, either.
>>>>
>>>> Are you familiar with the kerbed, lined, signed and signalled
>>>> artefacts known as "roads"?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>> Are you saying that roads are just for motor vehicles?
>>
>> No.
>
> So what you are saying is the exact opposite of what you just typed.

Not at all. The "law" may give all equal priority, but the reality, and
the norms of our society tell quite a different story.

>> I'm saying that our society has given motorists de facto priority on
>> roads.
>
> Society has not given motorists priority on our roads, it is a minority
> of selfish drivers who are unable to control their vehicles within the
> fairly lax rules given to them.

Absolute rubbish. What do we hammer into our children about roads? Do
we say you don't need to look, the cars will spot you and stop if you
want to cross? Do we have pavements to keep pedestrians off the road?
Do we have zebra crossings to try and stop the traffic so we can cross?

> e.g.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/6385151.stm
> BBC NEWS | Man, 83, goes the wrong way on M6

There will always be that sort of thing - unless we incarcerate the elderly.

> Imagine the chaos if you took away what lax rules there already are.

Open your eyes. We all know of traffic light junctions that work better
when the lights are out. We have all (surely by now) seen the "shared
space" schemes, mainly in the Netherlands, where pedestrians, cyclists
and motorists have equal prioroty and behave like "human beings".

--
Matt B

 

[Martin Dann]

Matt B wrote:
>>>>>Are you familiar with the kerbed, lined, signed and signalled
>>>>> artefacts known as "roads"?

i.e. There are sections of the country specifically for motor vehicles.

>>>> Are you saying that roads are just for motor vehicles?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> So what you are saying is the exact opposite of what you just typed.
>
> Not at all.

So you type the above, and then deny its meaning.

You have just become the sole member of my kill file.
I hope you get lonely in there.

Martin.

 

[Matt B]

Martin Dann wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>>>>>> Are you familiar with the kerbed, lined, signed and signalled
>>>>>> artefacts known as "roads"?
>
> i.e. There are sections of the country specifically for motor vehicles.
>
>>>>> Are you saying that roads are just for motor vehicles?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> So what you are saying is the exact opposite of what you just typed.
>>
>> Not at all.
>
> So you type the above, and then deny its meaning.

Let me say it again:
Legally roads are for everyone. In actual fact roads are dedicated to
motor traffic - pedestrians generally wait for cars to pass before
crossing. Children are taught from day 1 not to go near roads. The de
facto priority is reinforced by the engineering - kerbs, lines etc.

What I believe we need is for the "engineering" to be revised so that
motor traffic is NOT given priority, and so that all users can see, and
know, and it becomes transparently obvious, that all users, on foot, on
2 wheels, in cars, have EQUAL priority, and no-one can assume an
implicit precedence to proceed unhindered. Who goes next, crossing, or
with the flow, needs to be established by human interaction for each and
every instance. We need to give the roads back to the users.

> You have just become the sole member of my kill file.

Your choice.

> I hope you get lonely in there.

I doubt it.

--
Matt B

 

[John Clayton]

>> > You could cite those European countries who have the assumed liability
>> > in vulnerable road user collisions where cycling is up to ten times
>> > safer than in the UK.
>>
>> > Moves to introduce the same legislation in the UK were violently
>> > opposed by the ABD and motoring lobby.


> Danes are not genetically different so why is Denmark ten times safer
> for cyclists?
>
> Why is it mostly the UK where cyclists are treated as scum?
>
> The OP suggested elsewhere that cycling was connected with socialism
> and suffrage so the hoary old "You don't pay road tax" insults are
> trotted out, plus the drip-drip effect of a media intent on
> demonising, dehumanising and belittling cyclists:
>
> Jeremy Clarkson. The Sun. London (UK): Jul 16, 2005. pg. 33
>
> Copyright (c) News Group Newspapers Limited 2005
>
> IN the wake of the London bombs we're told that many commuters are now
> switching to bicycles.
>
> This is great of course. On a bicycle, you don't have to sit next to a
> lunatic, you won't be glued to your seat by a piece of chewing gum,
> and
> you will not be stopped by leaves on the line or industrial action.
>
> However, can I offer five handy hints to those setting out on a bike
> for
> the first time.
>
> Do not cruise through red lights. Because if I'm coming the other way,
> I
> will run you down, for fun.
>
> Do not pull up at junctions in front of a line of traffic. Because if
> I'm
> behind you, I will set off at normal speed and you will be crushed
> under
> my wheels.
>
> Do not wear lycra shorts unless you are Kate Moss. I do not wish to
> cruise
> down the road looking at your meat and two veg.
>
> Do not, ever, swear at or curse people in cars or trucks. You are a
> guest
> on roads that are paid for by motorists so if we cut you up, shut up.
>
> Do not wear a helmet. It makes you look ridiculous.
>
> Clarkson believes people who cycle are sub-humans, it doesn't matter
> if they are killed or injured. And the end result of car-dependence...
> rocketing obesity levels, congestion, air pollution, thousands of
> people killed every year by cars (e.g. 41 pedestrians were killed on
> pavements by motoristss in 2003)
>
>
The attitude of some motorists saddens me greatly - one prime example is the
bloke (coming the other way) who screamed "bastards" at our group last
summer.
However the attitude of government (all recent governments) frankly sickens
me with their absolute cowardice in dealing with the motoring people. They
have caved into fuel tax protestors, the assumed liability thing, done us
cyclists not one favour while claiming to be green.
I really cannot explain why such a benign, harmless group of road users such
as us are at fairly serious risk of injury when we indulge our lawful
pastime or route to work.
In the UK I have some friends (3) killed while cycling. I have had cars
driven deliberately at me, I've been deliberately knocked off my bike
(diplomatic protection saved him from prosectution). I'm far from alone in
this.
None of this has happened, ever while cycling abroad.
We need a lot of money to be spent on driver education, this might help -
otherwise I really don't know what could be done except perhaps burn down
Parlaiment and the Daily Mail / Sun offices down.

John Clayton
www.calder-clarion.co.uk

 

[Paul - xxx]

Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
> Paul - *** wrote:
>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
>>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
>>>>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>>>>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...08399.0.mums_rage_over_death_crash_charge.php
>>>>>>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well
>>>>>>> as it could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives,
>>>>>>> especially in relation to the following:
>>>>>> What alternatives?
>>>>> I could reel off the list again,
>>>> Well that's what I asked for, I've not seen any 'alternatives'
>>>> proposed by you.
>>>>
>>>>> (driver pays).
>>>> Who would you expect to pay other than the user of above
>>>> documents/licences/certificates?
>>> Who "pays" to put pedestrians and cyclists on the roads?
>>
>> Why ask yet more questions instead of answering succinctly and
>> plainly?
>
> Your question beggars belief - the answer is so apparent. I was
> prompting you, hoping it might click. ;-)

See, you can't help waffle rather than actually saying what you mean.

>>> Allow motorists to assume responsibility for
>>> their own actions.
>>
>> The main subject of this thread appears to not accept any
>> responsibility, so how do you think your proposal might come about?
>
> Eh? I think that motorists, and all other road users, should take
> full responsibility for their own actions, and not rely on traffic
> engineering to dictate when, where and how they go.

But the subject of this thread appears not to be accepting any
responsibility for killing someone and yet you advocate giving drivers
even more responsibility.

>>> In
>>> fact, treat all road users as equal in terms of rights and
>>> responsibilities.
>>
>> I do.
>
> Society as a whole doesn't. Would you give-way to a car if you were
> halfway across a zebra crossing? Have you ever driven a motor
> vehicle?

See ... more questions, you just can't help it. Say what you mean
rather than waffling about looking for what someone else thinks so you
can carry on waffling just a bit longer.

And yes, I drive quite a lot, in fact more than I cycle or walk at the
moment.

--
Paul - ***

 

[Matt B]

Paul - *** wrote:
> Matt B typed:
>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>> Matt B typed:
>>>> Allow motorists to assume responsibility for
>>>> their own actions.
>>> The main subject of this thread appears to not accept any
>>> responsibility, so how do you think your proposal might come about?
>> Eh? I think that motorists, and all other road users, should take
>> full responsibility for their own actions, and not rely on traffic
>> engineering to dictate when, where and how they go.
>
> But the subject of this thread appears not to be accepting any
> responsibility for killing someone and yet you advocate giving drivers
> even more responsibility.

My point is that by over regulating drivers you are, in effect (I know
not deliberately, or legally) taking responsibility from them. By
relieving them of the necessity to concentrate at junctions and
crossings, by regulating who does what when, we (the society that has
provided the rules) are placing messages into their subconscious
somewhere that they don't need to pay too much attention much of the
time to what's going on - they can become reliant on the cues provided
for them tp make their passage painless and speedy. This, of course,
isn't the intention, and it is an excuse unlikely to be listened to to
forgive their behaviour, but I suggest that it is a real phenomenon
which we are paying little attention to. What I'm also trying to
suggest is that by removing the cues we will remove the "block" on
drivers' requirement to make their own decisions. In so doing they then
need to take full account of what is going on around them. They need to
pay attention to make progress. They become attentive and alert.

>>>> In
>>>> fact, treat all road users as equal in terms of rights and
>>>> responsibilities.
>>> I do.
>> Society as a whole doesn't. Would you give-way to a car if you were
>> halfway across a zebra crossing? Have you ever driven a motor
>> vehicle?
>
> See ... more questions, you just can't help it. Say what you mean
> rather than waffling about looking for what someone else thinks so you
> can carry on waffling just a bit longer.

I'll try ;-) harder. We know the law and the HC do not give drivers
absolute priority on the roads. What I'm suggesting though is that we
are fooling their psyche into thinking that they /do/ have priority by
the way we provide for them, and the way they have been "educated".
From an early age we warn children to keep away from the road and mind
cars at their own peril. We do not teach them that they have just as
much (some would say actually more) right than the motorists to be in a
particular place at a particular time. We make roads so that they are
easy for drivers to use - and in so doing they become difficult for
pedestrians. We reinforce the message by providing palces for
pedestrians to cross - implying they should not cross wherever and
whenever they want. We have priority rules for junctions.

> And yes, I drive quite a lot, in fact more than I cycle or walk at the
> moment.

I don't suppose you often stop whilst driving, hold-up the traffic
behind you, and wait while pedestrians wander about on the road,
chatting and socialising? I don't suppose you refuse your turn at
traffic lights and insist that pedestrians on "red man"s take the road
before you. Can you see what I mean? I'm sorry if my "style" annoys
you - I'm trying (and obviously failing) to pull the ideas from others too.

--
Matt B

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

Matt B wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On 22 Feb, 13:49, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
>>>> caught up with your enlightened attitude.
>>>
>>> Not really mine - but that of those who have successfully implemented
>>> such measures.
>>>
>>> The sad thing is that so many are prepared to ignore the science and
>>> persist with the old discredited ideas - because they know best!
>>
>>
>> Prove it then. Show where there is a general road usage policy that
>> does not have communal laws that proscribe driving in a way that
>> endangers others and does not prescribe legal concequences to those
>> who disregard those proscriptions.
>
>
> Many "Shared Space"-type schemes have been set-up in the U.S., U.K.,
> Australia and Europe which rely less on regulation and more on human
> interactions to ensure (yes _ensure_) road safety.
>
> The recognised "father" of such schemes is the Dutch "traffic engineer"
> Hans Monderman. He has said of road regulations:
> "By regulating more the traffic behaviour becomes even more dominant,
> specialists are going to run society instead of the other way round,
> there will be more and more separate spaces, people will operate ever
> more anonymously and will increasingly insist on their rights and on
> rules. In this way in the end the powers that become responsible for
> behaviour instead of the people themselves. In Shared Space, however, we
> ask politicians to allow people to be human again and to show more often
> social behaviour again, also and precisely as drivers of cars. That is
> what our society needs. I am sure of that."
>

Which answers the above in what way? It doesn't.

"Fool fool and thrice times fool begone for thou dost weary the soul and
make fair Lydia frown."

Sniper8052 - Now leaving the room before he upsets those with whom he
would rather converse at a later date.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote on 22/02/2007 14:31 +0100:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
>> ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>>
>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>> On 22 Feb, 13:18, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>>>>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
>>
>> [SCYTHE]
>>
>> Matt, I very rarely let trolls wind me up.
>
> Simon, the easy way to stop being wound up is to kill file him. My life
> would be Matt B free if idiots didn't keep dragging him out of my kill
> file with their troll wrestling.

He's in my killfile. But I haven't as yet killfiled everyone who follows up
to him, and today it was just too much. Sorry, everyone, I apologise.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
There's nae Gods, an there's precious few heroes
but there's plenty on the dole in th Land o th Leal;
And it's time now, tae sweep the future clear o
th lies o a past that we know wis never real.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps it is
>>> because you haven't been given a secure, demarked path through,
>>> dedicated to the safe and speedy passage of mirror carriers - with de
>>> facto priority - and woe betide anyone who crosses your path. You
>>> would probably die of embarrassment and apologise profusely if you
>>> bumped into anyone, or caused anyone to swerve or take evasive action
>>> to avoid you.
>>
>> It may have escaped you notice, but car drivers aren't provided with
>> such a path, either.
>
> Are you familiar with the kerbed, lined, signed and signalled artefacts
> known as "roads"?

Yes, but they aren't provided for cars. They're provided for pedestrians.
That's the law.

> Ooh, I don't like the tone, or the implications of that. Would you care
> to explain, and substantiate, what you meant when you said: "like you".

You've spent the past six months - at least - acting as an apologist for
and occasionally a promoter of murder.

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

;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

 

[John B]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >
> > Simon, the easy way to stop being wound up is to kill file him. My life
> > would be Matt B free if idiots didn't keep dragging him out of my kill
> > file with their troll wrestling.
>
> He's in my killfile. But I haven't as yet killfiled everyone who follows up
> to him, and today it was just too much. Sorry, everyone, I apologise.

Simon, your posts have been the best of the day, and the most accurate.

He's turned from a pathetic irritant to a despicable uncaring b*st*rd.

John B

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote on 22/02/2007 22:10 +0100:

> He's in my killfile. But I haven't as yet killfiled everyone who follows up
> to him, and today it was just too much. Sorry, everyone, I apologise.

and twenty minutes later Simon Brooke wrote on 22/02/2007 22:33 +0100:

> in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
> ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>
> Yes, but they aren't provided for cars. They're provided for pedestrians.
> That's the law.
>

So much for the apology. By the way, how do you reply directly to a
message that is in your kill file?


--
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]

John B wrote on 22/02/2007 23:17 +0100:
>
> He's turned from a pathetic irritant to a despicable uncaring b*st*rd.
>

Troll: 1 URC Troll Wrestlers: 0

(Hint: Trolls are not interested in the content of the argument, only
in the fact that they are stimulating one and a getting response. You
getting irritated and responding more is just what they are after. Kill
files are your friend apart from the irritant troll wrestlers who drag
the trolls out to parade in their responses)

--
Tony

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

 

[Simon Dean]

spindrift wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 12:41, Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected]
>>
>>> This is Local London
>>> 22 February 2001.
>>> Mum's rage over death crash charge
>> Tragic case, typical outcome in this petrol-headed world.
>>
>> Shame the OP made a little error with the date, making me wonder if this
>> was old news. It isn't, but we'll no doubt hear similar stories for many
>> years...
>>
>> --
>> Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
>> Edgware.
>
> The only reason the Carr trial got such a positive result was because
> of his high profile, in my opinion. Drivers routinely kill cyclists
> and get away with it and the media lend free air time to pro-speeding
> lobby groups like the one Troll B refuses to admit he is a member of,
> populated by people who fantasise on their forums about killing
> cyclists:

I am uncomfortable with this. Some drivers routinely kill people. I'd be
much happier saying people kill cyclists... and lets start treating all
resulting deaths from motor vehicle accidents as murder etc... Lets end
the distinction and the prejudice against minorities...

Im not for pro-speeding, but I am for sensible speed limits. I also see
nothing wrong (although illegal), I see nothing wrong with exceeding the
posted speed limit provided it is safe.

Of course, in these times, it is largely unsafe to travel at anything
over the posted speed limit, but there are a couple of examples I can
think of where they have got it completely wrong, ie, the Collector Road
in Birmingham that runs alongside the M6... it has been given a 50mph
from 70, to prevent accidents due to junctions on the road. But the side
without junctions and therefore safer, has still been reduced to
50mph... There are swathes of bypasses and huge great big open spaces,
clear views, NO PEDESTRIANS, and very few cars, with a limit of 30mph...
40mph should be safe... I'd settle for 35mph though...

I think the greater menace is those who ignore speed limit signs and
speed when it is unsafe to do so...

People will travel from a 60 limit to a 30 limit keeping to 40 at all
times... They seem oblivious to the speed limit they were travelling in
(you'd think if they thought 60mph too fast, then maybe driving at 30mph
in a built up area where there are more hazards would be dangerous), but
no, they still plough through at 40...

They seem oblivious to the 30 sign, and they seem to think wherever they
are, 40 is the answer. They travel without regard to safety, others, or
anything around them. "Im alright jack".

I wouldn't mind if they just thought about the 30 sign and tapped the
brakes a few times in preparation to consider the area they will be
driving through. But no. Blissful ignorance, each and every time.

Im pro-safe-speed, but Im not pro-jackass-accident-unsafe-speed...

But all these people arguing against the speed limit, I don't see them
arguing to do it unsafely?

I was once taught, when overtaking, stick your foot down, get past as
quickly as possible. This means having to exceed the speed limit every
now and again to actually ensure safety.

Cya
Simon

 

[Paul - xxx]

Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:

> I don't suppose you often stop whilst driving, hold-up the traffic
> behind you, and wait while pedestrians wander about on the road,
> chatting and socialising? I don't suppose you refuse your turn at
> traffic lights and insist that pedestrians on "red man"s take the road
> before you. Can you see what I mean? I'm sorry if my "style" annoys
> you - I'm trying (and obviously failing) to pull the ideas from
> others too.

So what you're advocating is an absolute and complete change of
_everything_ about our road use system.

How successful/stressful/expensive do you think that will be?

How do you propose to implement this radical change?

--
Paul - ***