From: Peter Grange on
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:52:48 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
<davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Jacobian wrote:
>> On 17/03/2010 10:54, Peter Grange wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Company secretary, happens all the time, look it up!
>>>
>>> That'll be the Company Secretary that a company is not required to
>>> have any more.
>>
>> Just because you don't 'need' a company secretary anymore, doesn't
>> mean that most don't have one.
>>
>> Anyway, fill in the name of a company on a logbook, you are required
>> to nominate a responsible real person.. they get the points/fine if
>> they cannot point finger at someone else.
>
>Don't be surprised if they don't understand that - cyclists are a bit thick.

I for one understand perfectly. Jacobian said "Company secretary,
happens all the time, look it up!". Which, as it happens, was not
necessarily correct.
From: S on
On Mar 15, 9:01 pm, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "S" <s_pickle2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2661e281-7b67-434e-aeb4-6fec49283186(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 3:48 pm, JMS <jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:01:08 +0000, Biggles
>
> >> <n...(a)packaging.the-shillings.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >Marie wrote:
> >> >> Looks like the IOM might have the right idea.
>
> >> >> ALL bicycles ridden by those over 16 should be licenced, Castletown
> >> >> Commissioners believe.
>
> >> >> See
>
> >> >>http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Call-for-bicycles-to-be.6132083.jp
>
> >> >> Marie
>
> >> >Can't see any logical reason why it shouldn't apply to all bicycles, not
> >> >just those ridden by over 16s. Ah, but that might inconvenience the
> >> >narrow-minded individuals proposing the legislation?
>
> >> >Still, forcing all tax payers to subsidise each bicycle licence to the
> >> >tune of £20 sounds like fun.
>
> >> It does not actually say that.
>
> >> I think that is should be totally self financing.
>
> >> If it costs 30 quid  per cycle - then that should be the cost of the
> >> licence.
>
> >> --
> >> Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for
> >> the Highway Code and laws.
>
> > What about motorists and their contempt for the Highway Code and laws?
> > Today, on my way home from work, less than 10 minutes, I saw 6 cars go
> > through the red light, including 2 which did not even take notice of
> > the pedestrian crossing on green, I saw another 2 making a prohibited
> > left turn into a one-way street against the legal direction of the
> > traffic, 3 box junction offences, too many to count illegally parked
> > cars.
>
> >> The answer:
> >> All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance,
> >> and be registered.
> >> Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz
> >> vest.
>
> > What about drivers identity clearly displayed on the outside of their
> > cars?
>
> >> Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
>
> > Same for motorists.
>
> So are you saying that just because one group of road users has a few law
> breakers everyone else should be allowed to get away with it?

I said nothing like that. I was just wondering why Judith M Smith was
not also proposing that repeat offender motorists' cars should be
crushed as well.
From: S on
On Mar 15, 11:29 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> S wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >> Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their
> >> contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
>
> > What about motorists and their contempt for the Highway Code and laws?
> > Today, on my way home from work, less than 10 minutes, I saw 6 cars go
> > through the red light, including 2 which did not even take notice of
> > the pedestrian crossing on green, I saw another 2 making a prohibited
> > left turn into a one-way street against the legal direction of the
> > traffic, 3 box junction offences, too many to count illegally parked
> > cars.
>
> Where do you live?  The Chatsworth Estate?
>
> I don't see that many motoring offences in a year.  I think you speak with
> forked tongue.
>
> >> The answer:
> >> All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory
> >> insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly
> >> visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
>
> > What about drivers identity clearly displayed on the outside of their
> > cars?
>
> Doh!  Its called a number plate

Really? It must be something new, last week I was still able to drive
without having to display any number plate identiyfing me personally.
From: S on
On Mar 15, 11:30 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> S wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 4:27 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Mike Smith wrote:
> >>> I will never pay a licence fee to ride my bicycle. Let the wimps
> >>> fall in line if they feel bullied into doing so.
>
> >> Shouldn't be surprised by this comment. Cyclists are habitual law
> >> breakers.
>
> > As are motorists.
>
> Only in your weird deluded mind.
>

Are you a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists to make such a
diagnosis?

I assure you that law breaking by motorists is common, if you open
your eyes, you will see plenty of it.

1. Running red lights. Amber to most motorists seems to mean "speed
up" instead of "stop", and people accelerate even when it is clear
that they will never make it before the light turns red. There are
also many who *start* to turn right just after the light turns red.

2. Driving in the wrong direction in a one-way street. I live in a one-
way street and see plenty of it, there have been at least two crashes
as well. Last year the water company dug up the entrance, so there
should have been no traffic except for cars already parked on the
street leaving. Instead of this there was a steady stream of cars
entering at the wrong end, driving down the street, seeing their exit
was blocked and turning around.

3. Speeding.

4. Illegal parking.

Etc, etc.
From: S on
On Mar 16, 6:15 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
> > "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> > messagenews:dpznn.50620$Ym4.41311(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >> S wrote:
>
> >>> What about drivers identity clearly displayed on the outside of
> >>> their cars?
>
> >> Doh!  Its called a number plate knobhead.
>
> > That identifies the vehicle, not the driver.
>
> It identifies the registered keeper and if the vehicle is involved in
> breaking traffic law the registered keeper is obliged to name the driver.
>
> Same thing innit?
>

There are loophole, e.g., the registered keeper claiming that he was
travelling with his wife and not remembering who was driving at the
precise moment, or the company secretary claiming that it was either X
or Y or Z, but he has no way of knowing exactly which employee.