Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Keitht on 7 Dec 2009 03:53 The Medway Handyman wrote: > To compare cyclists to walkers is not a scientific comparison. Walkers > proceed at approx 4 mph, cyclists at 12 mph. Cyclists could not sustain > such a low speed, walkers could not sustain such a high speed without > running. > > You don't cycle, do you? Remember them 'gear' thingies in your van? Now, it may come as a surprise to you but they can be used to go slower rather than always faster. HTH -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
From: mileburner on 7 Dec 2009 04:18 "DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote in message news:7o2sdgF3nl7vaU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > All cyclists go through red lights, ride on pavements and don't have > lights > at night. All tradesmen fiddle their tax. Seems straightforward enough. > Now you're getting it...
From: Derek Geldard on 7 Dec 2009 09:46 On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:10:52 +0000, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:25:49 -0000, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > >>What do you think volcanos do? > >Generally they leak small quantities of greenhouse gasses into the >atmosphere; they occasionally spew huge quantities of greenhouse >gasses into the atmosphere for a short period of time. Rarely they >can have a significant impact on global CO2 levels for a period of >many years before the Earth re-balances itself. The Earth does this, >mostly by absorbing the CO2 into the oceans generating growth spurts >of algae which then dies and falls to the ocean bed and is taken out >of the carbon chain for a great many thousands of years. > >Unfortunately, the Earth cannot cope with the increasing volumes of >CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere by mankind. But the problem may >not be irreversible if carbon emissions are significantly reduced. As long as the money ( power and control) ends up in the right hands - Eh ? Derek
From: boltar2003 on 7 Dec 2009 10:03 On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:46:17 +0000 Derek Geldard <impex(a)miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote: >As long as the money ( power and control) ends up in the right hands >- Eh ? Yeah , all those climate scientists are secretly plotting to take over the world. They say they get research grants but we all know they use the money to build secret underground bunkers inside volcanos with huge weather controlling machines! B2003
From: johnwright ""john" on 7 Dec 2009 12:14
Adrian wrote: > johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >>> Considering man made CO2 has absolutely no effect on climate change at >>> all, why does it matter? > >> You have some proof of that - real proof I mean not some illegally >> hacked out of context emails from UEA[1]? > > I'd love to know what possible context deleting information rather than > reveal it in response to an FoI request would be acceptable. An FoI request would only get you government data wherever you are. in the case of a university, none of which are covered by FoI, you would not be entitled to any information. You might get some if you ask the right way, you might not, they might just turn around and say all the information we have is published in relevant journals. (Except of course that work which is paid for by commercial companies about which we can tell you nothing.) In this particular case UEA have to take a lot of the responsibility since they took a "head in the sand" attitude to the whole matter until the last few days. > As for the legality - umm, does the method of revelation (assuming it > wasn't an internal whistle-blower) somehow invalidate the information > revealed? It was supposedly a hack from some Russian source rather than any whistleblower according to the trail of evidence presented. It is illegal if done within certain countries - think of Gary McKinnon and what he is charged with - NASA is a civilian organisation, not a military one. The probability of getting extradition from Russia on this basis is probably zero in any case. In this case the hackers could publish whatever they want to back up their own agenda. This would invalidate it altogether to my mind since we are only given a partial picture - according to some sources about 1% of what was hacked is being presented. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore John Wright |