Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Alan Braggins on 6 Jul 2008 15:55 In article <nrr174d9ejrs86p1cuc27s8vmnav89tsc7(a)4ax.com>, Tom Crispin wrote: >> >>As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone is willing >>to do and what they're able to do are two different things. > >So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able? He can answer the question, but his answer would be rubbish. By refusing to do so, he can pretend that he might know what he's talking about.
From: Chris Bartram on 6 Jul 2008 17:07 Rob Morley wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:15:50 GMT > Chris Bartram <news(a)delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote: > >> Is this government sponsored? Who finances it? It sounds very >> complete- is it part of a nationwide effort? > > What happens if you search Google for 'Bikeability'? > I have no idea. While I sometimes disagree with Tom, I like the fact that I can still have a sensible conversation with him about something that interests him. JFGI is old hat now :-/.
From: Chris Bartram on 6 Jul 2008 17:13 Tom Crispin wrote: > For the past three years I have been financed by Transport for London. > Unfortunately, that funding stream seems to have dried up for small > groups, the money going to the Road Safety Officers in the London > Boroughs instead. Does that make your position awkward? As I've said elsewhere, I often disgaree with your views, but the Bikeability scheme seems something worthwhile. I'm an occaisional cyclist (for leisure and exercise), but if work was closer I'd cycle or walk. Like I said, the old cycling proficiency struck me as a great thing: if this scheme goes further then I'd hate it to be in jeopardy.
From: Periander on 6 Jul 2008 17:32 Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in news:g4r4hd$klk$1(a)registered.motzarella.org: >>> Count as an a contravention of the regulation. >> >> What, even if he comes along while you're loading the vehicle with >> goods and passengers and have the door(s) open for that purpose? > > That situation is unclear, as I have already posted. No it's not, it's very clear, an open door is an open door, end of story. It is the act of opening a door to cause danger etc that is the offence. Spot the "ing" -- Regards or otherwise, Periander
From: Periander on 6 Jul 2008 17:33
Chris Bartram <news(a)delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote in news:Rzack.22026 $E41.13993(a)text.news.virginmedia.com: > Tom Crispin wrote: > >> For the past three years I have been financed by Transport for London. >> Unfortunately, that funding stream seems to have dried up for small >> groups, the money going to the Road Safety Officers in the London >> Boroughs instead. > > Does that make your position awkward? As I've said elsewhere, I often > disgaree with your views, but the Bikeability scheme seems something > worthwhile. I'm an occaisional cyclist (for leisure and exercise), but > if work was closer I'd cycle or walk. Like I said, the old cycling > proficiency struck me as a great thing: if this scheme goes further then > I'd hate it to be in jeopardy. Yup, he'd have to find a real job. -- Regards or otherwise, Periander |