Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: boltar2003 on 29 Jul 2010 05:31 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:21:53 +0100 Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >The existence of many roads with hazards that require driving at lower >speeds than the limit says nothing about speed limits. You must have heard >"its not a target". Many stretches of road have too high or too low a >limit, that's the nature of it i'm afraid. Approximation. Rubbish. If a limit is too high for a given stretch it can be lowered and vice verca. Its not cast in stone for all time. B2003
From: Squashme on 29 Jul 2010 05:31 On 29 July, 09:21, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:1r65552a9jcy5.g9ageyxtgm2z.dlg(a)40tude.net...> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:35 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > > >> Colloquially, yes. It's also the footway and other dialect terms. But, in > >> road construction terms highways are paved or unpaved therefore the whole > >> of > >> the road surface is a pavement. > > > "colloquial" is what we use in everyday speech, it's the dictionary > > definition. If specialists use it another way, that's a specialists > > definition for internal use by them. > > "Colloquial" is also what people use when they're uneducated or too lazy to > use correct terminology. How do you feel about "Road Tax?"
From: Matt B on 29 Jul 2010 05:42 On 29/07/2010 08:47, Chris Bartram wrote: > On 28/07/10 14:40, Matt B wrote: >> On 28/07/2010 14:30, Adrian wrote: >>> Matt B<matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> gurgled happily, sounding much >>> like >>> they were saying: >>> >>>>>> including the less competant drivers, who shouldn't be forced off the >>>>>> road because they are not up to "racing". >>> >>>>> Are you suggesting that every level of competence should be catered >>>>> for, rather than a minimum acceptable level of competence drawn? >>> >>>> Absolutely! >>> >>> Now I'm very worried indeed. >> >> We are talking liberalised shared public streets here (not strategic >> through roads, which would be a different kettle of fish altogether). >> >> We would tolerate all-comers walking and cycling on them, so why not >> tolerate the less able driving on them? The street design would >> eliminate the possibility of them doing too much damage, and if they >> really /were/ dangerous, they could have some sort of banning order >> served. >> >> The default for the use of social spaces should be to _allow_ unless >> there is a supportable and compelling reason not to. >> > Are you taking some mind-altering substance? No, I've always been open-minded. ;-) -- Matt B
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 05:51 Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > But I can ignore the bridges now! Can you? http://www.metro.co.uk/news/833636-yobs-throw-rocks-from-bridge-on-to-m1- vehicles
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 05:52
"Squashme" <squashme(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b39c1d52-5d38-4712-a180-efce1913e838(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... > On 29 July, 09:21, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in >> messagenews:1r65552a9jcy5.g9ageyxtgm2z.dlg(a)40tude.net...> On Wed, 28 Jul >> 2010 17:32:35 +0100, Brimstone wrote: >> >> >> Colloquially, yes. It's also the footway and other dialect terms. But, >> >> in >> >> road construction terms highways are paved or unpaved therefore the >> >> whole >> >> of >> >> the road surface is a pavement. >> >> > "colloquial" is what we use in everyday speech, it's the dictionary >> > definition. If specialists use it another way, that's a specialists >> > definition for internal use by them. >> >> "Colloquial" is also what people use when they're uneducated or too lazy >> to >> use correct terminology. > > How do you feel about "Road Tax?" I have no feelings about "Road Tax" either way. |