🚀 go-pugleaf

Simon Bennett wrote on 29/09/2006 09:53 +0100:
> Bill Ridgeway wrote:
> 
>> Consider this!  In all those
>> accidents where speed is cited as the cause, if the vehicle was going
>> slightly faster they would have gone passed the point of impact and
>> the pedestrian would have had a clear crossing!
> 
> Are you really this stupid?
> 
> Is anyone?
> 

Probably refers to an amusing video to that effect that was posted here 
many moons ago.


-- 
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using 
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Simon Bennett wrote on 29/09/2006 09:53 +0100:
> Bill Ridgeway wrote:
> 
>> Consider this!  In all those
>> accidents where speed is cited as the cause, if the vehicle was going
>> slightly faster they would have gone passed the point of impact and
>> the pedestrian would have had a clear crossing!
> 
> Are you really this stupid?
> 
> Is anyone?
> 

Probably refers to an amusing video to that effect that was posted here 
many moons ago.


-- 
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using 
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Bill Ridgeway wrote on 29/09/2006 11:16 +0100:
> SNIP <<Which law would that be, then?>>
> 
> Have a look at the Highway Code.  It's all in there.
> 

The Highway Code is not the law.  The hint is in its title.


-- 
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using 
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Bill Ridgeway wrote on 29/09/2006 11:16 +0100:
> SNIP <<Which law would that be, then?>>
> 
> Have a look at the Highway Code.  It's all in there.
> 

The Highway Code is not the law.  The hint is in its title.


-- 
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using 
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

The message <ffsvu3-401.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>
from Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> contains these words:

> Pedestrians have right of way when they have right of way; in any given
> interaction, away from a crossing, there's an even chance that the
> pedestrian will have right of way.

You may think that but can you point to any statute or case law that
backs up your opinion.

> But what is clearly different is that
> the pedestrian has an absolute, inalienable right to use the road, and the
> motorist does not. The road is there for pedestrians, and motorists may
> use it on sufferance provided they behave themselves.

Roads are there primarily for wheeled traffic. Pavements are there for
pedestrians. There is nothing inalienable* about pedestrians rights. All
that is required to remove or modify their right to use roads is an Act
of Parliament. Most motorists do indeed need a licence to use a public
road which can be taken away in certain circumstances but to call that
"on sufferance" is to misunderstand the meaning of the word almost as
completely as the slave owners who signed the US Declaration of
Independence misunderstood the meaning of their own words.

*Unalienable apparently in the Declaration of Independence.

-- 
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:

> The message <ffsvu3-401.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>
> from Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> contains these words:
> 
>> Pedestrians have right of way when they have right of way; in any given
>> interaction, away from a crossing, there's an even chance that the
>> pedestrian will have right of way.
> 
> You may think that but can you point to any statute or case law that
> backs up your opinion.

Highways act 1835, as amended by further acts of parliament?

-- 
Chris

The message <4o5cr2Fc1u1pU1@individual.net>
from Chris Slade <uce@ftc.gov> contains these words:

> >> Pedestrians have right of way when they have right of way; in any given
> >> interaction, away from a crossing, there's an even chance that the
> >> pedestrian will have right of way.
> > 
> > You may think that but can you point to any statute or case law that
> > backs up your opinion.

> Highways act 1835, as amended by further acts of parliament?

Could you be more precise. That was before tha age of mechanised road
transport and while it still seems to have some relevance (section 72 is
of course the section that makes it a criminal offence to ride a bicycle
on the footpath) so far I have failed to find anything that does support
the contention above although I have come across a snippet that appears
to suggest the opposite.

"The Highways Act 1835 also makes obstruction an offence and leads to
the same fines. Both of these were updated by the Highways Act 1980
which says it is an offence to willfully obstruct the free passage along
a public highway."

Pedestrians who attempt to cross a highway in the face of oncoming
traffic are surely willfully obstructing the free passage along a public
highway which is actually the point I was making in the paragraph you
cut.

-- 
Roger Chapman

in message <3130303031313434451D6FA413@nospam.zetnet.co.uk>, Roger
('roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk') wrote:

> The message <ffsvu3-401.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>
> from Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> contains these words:
> 
>> Pedestrians have right of way when they have right of way; in any given
>> interaction, away from a crossing, there's an even chance that the
>> pedestrian will have right of way.
> 
> You may think that but can you point to any statute or case law that
> backs up your opinion.
> 
>> But what is clearly different is that
>> the pedestrian has an absolute, inalienable right to use the road, and
>> the motorist does not. The road is there for pedestrians, and motorists
>> may use it on sufferance provided they behave themselves.
> 
> Roads are there primarily for wheeled traffic. Pavements are there for
> pedestrians. There is nothing inalienable* about pedestrians rights.

No? Where's your pedestrian's licence, then? You don't have one because you
don't need one. Your right as a pedestrian to use the road
is /inalienable/. That means, /it cannot be taken away/. Your driver's
licence, on the other hand, can be taken way, suspended, endorsed, or
revoked.

> Most motorists do indeed need a licence to use a public
> road which can be taken away in certain circumstances but to call that
> "on sufferance" is to misunderstand the meaning of the word almost as
> completely as the slave owners who signed the US Declaration of
> Independence misunderstood the meaning of their own words.

Again, I used on sufferance in the precise meaning of the term. A motorist
is suffered to continue to be a motorist precisely so long as he behaves.
If he doesn't behave, his licence is suspended.

> *Unalienable apparently in the Declaration of Independence.

What declaration of independence? Do you, perchance mean the Declaration of
Arbroath? As far as I can recall, that's the only declaration of
independence in British history. 

-- 
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

        Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
                                ;; the Worlock

in message <3130303031313434451D969526@nospam.zetnet.co.uk>, Roger
('roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk') wrote:

> The message <4o5cr2Fc1u1pU1@individual.net>
> from Chris Slade <uce@ftc.gov> contains these words:
> 
>> >> Pedestrians have right of way when they have right of way; in any
>> >> given interaction, away from a crossing, there's an even chance that
>> >> the pedestrian will have right of way.
>> > 
>> > You may think that but can you point to any statute or case law that
>> > backs up your opinion.
> 
>> Highways act 1835, as amended by further acts of parliament?
> 
> Could you be more precise. That was before tha age of mechanised road
> transport and while it still seems to have some relevance (section 72 is
> of course the section that makes it a criminal offence to ride a bicycle
> on the footpath) so far I have failed to find anything that does support
> the contention above although I have come across a snippet that appears
> to suggest the opposite.
> 
> "The Highways Act 1835 also makes obstruction an offence and leads to
> the same fines. Both of these were updated by the Highways Act 1980
> which says it is an offence to willfully obstruct the free passage along
> a public highway."
> 
> Pedestrians who attempt to cross a highway in the face of oncoming
> traffic are surely willfully obstructing the free passage along a public
> highway which is actually the point I was making in the paragraph you
> cut.

No, legally, they're not. You're not obstructing free passage unless you're
actually stopped. Any parked car on any public road /is/ legally
obstructing free passage, and consequently parking on the road is
technically illegal anywhere in Britain, irrespective of yellow lines. But
it you are actually moving across the road, you're not obstructing it.

But to put it simply for you, again: pedestrians have a /right/ to cross
the road; you have a /licence/ to drive along it. A right always trumps a
licence.

-- 
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

        ;; L'etat c'est moi                     -- Louis XVI
        ;; I... we... the Government            -- Tony Blair

In article <7rg0v3-fvn.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>, Simon 
Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> writes
>But to put it simply for you, again: pedestrians have a /right/ to cross
>the road; you have a /licence/ to drive along it. A right always trumps a
>licence.

They do not have a right to "Walk unheedingly into the path of an 
oncoming vehicle"  AKA jaywalking !!!
-- 
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

"Bill Ridgeway" <info@1001solutions.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:efiktf$2he$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>  Consider this!  In all those accidents where speed is cited as the cause, 
> if the vehicle was going slightly faster they would have gone passed the 
> point of impact and the pedestrian would have had a clear crossing!
>

Except that cases where the car just missed the pedestrian because the 
pedestrian just managed to get across before the car hit them would now be 
accidents if the car gone just a little bit faster.

Not to mention those cases where if the car had been going a little faster 
the accident would still have happened, but the injuries would be far worse. 

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:E8hvRneXqUHFFAk$@perry.co.uk...
> In message <8jsvu3-a91.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>, at 17:01:12 
> on Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Sep 2006, Bill Ridgeway <info@1001solutions.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>Here is a selection of Highway Code Rules for pedestrians. You will
>>>>understand why I haven't quoted them all verbatim.
>>>>Rule 7a - Find a safe place to cross
>>>>Rule 7c - Look all around for traffic and listen
>>>>Rule 7d - If traffic is coming, let it pass
>>>>Rule 7e - When it is safe, go straight across the road - do not run
>>>>Rule 8 - At a junction
>>>>Rule 14 - Parked vehicles
>>>>Rule 17 - At night
>>>>Rule 18 - At all crossings
>>>>Rules 19 & 20 - Zebra crossings
>>>>Rule 21- At traffic lights
>>>>Rule 22 through 24 - Pelican crossings
>>>>Rule 25 Puffin and toucan crossings
>>>>Rule 26 - 'Staggered' pelican or puffin crossings
>>>
>>> Sadly, the only one that's law is part of 18: "You MUST NOT loiter on
>>> zebra, pelican or puffin crossings."
>>
>>Nothing sad about it.
>
> The sad thing is Bill thinks they are all law.
> -- 
> Roland Perry

I guess the confusion is because the sections are headed "Rules for 
pedestrians", "Rules for cyclists" etc. The word "rules" gives the 
impression that they are something which must be obeyed so I can see why 
people are confused into thinking that the highway code is the law. 

Roger said the following on 29/09/2006 21:56:

> Pedestrians who attempt to cross a highway in the face of oncoming
> traffic are surely willfully obstructing the free passage along a public
> highway which is actually the point I was making in the paragraph you
> cut.

Perhaps you should try it - in Telford.

(For non-cyclists on this thread, a cyclist was prosecuted for riding on 
the road in Telford, and fined by the same judge who let off the copper 
doing 180-odd mph on a motorway.)

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

W. D. Grey wrote:
> 
> They do not have a right to "Walk unheedingly into the path of an 
> oncoming vehicle"  AKA jaywalking !!!

There is no such thing as jaywalking in the UK. Have you been watching 
too many US TV imports?

-- 
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. (Arthur Bloch)

Adam Lea wrote on 30/09/2006 00:20 +0100:
> 
> Except that cases where the car just missed the pedestrian because the 
> pedestrian just managed to get across before the car hit them would now be 
> accidents if the car gone just a little bit faster.
> 

Indeed, the probability of an accident goes up with speed by simple 
collision cross section mathematics.  Say for example it takes two 
seconds for a pedestrian to cross the lane.  At thirty miles an hour, 
any car within 88ft of the pedestrian when they start crossing will hit 
them; at 60mph any car within 176ft of the pedestrian will hit them 
(assuming no braking or avoidance actions)


-- 
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using 
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Paul Boyd wrote:
> 
> (For non-cyclists on this thread, a cyclist was prosecuted for riding on 
> the road in Telford, and fined by the same judge who let off the copper 
> doing 180-odd mph on a motorway.)

180? I thought he was _only_ doing 159.

-- 
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.

Don Whybrow wrote on 30/09/2006 08:21 +0100:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>
>> (For non-cyclists on this thread, a cyclist was prosecuted for riding 
>> on the road in Telford, and fined by the same judge who let off the 
>> copper doing 180-odd mph on a motorway.)
> 
> 180? I thought he was _only_ doing 159.
> 

159mph on the motorway, 80mph in a 30mph limit IIRC

-- 
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using 
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Don Whybrow said the following on 30/09/2006 08:21:

> 180? I thought he was _only_ doing 159.

Sorry - typo!

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

The message <7rg0v3-fvn.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>
from Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> contains these words:

> >> >> Pedestrians have right of way when they have right of way; in any
> >> >> given interaction, away from a crossing, there's an even chance that
> >> >> the pedestrian will have right of way.
> >> > 
> >> > You may think that but can you point to any statute or case law that
> >> > backs up your opinion.
> > 
> >> Highways act 1835, as amended by further acts of parliament?
> > 
> > Could you be more precise. 

I take it the answer is no then.

> > That was before that age of mechanised road
> > transport and while it still seems to have some relevance (section 72 is
> > of course the section that makes it a criminal offence to ride a bicycle
> > on the footpath) so far I have failed to find anything that does support
> > the contention above although I have come across a snippet that appears
> > to suggest the opposite.
> > 
> > "The Highways Act 1835 also makes obstruction an offence and leads to
> > the same fines. Both of these were updated by the Highways Act 1980
> > which says it is an offence to willfully obstruct the free passage along
> > a public highway."
> > 
> > Pedestrians who attempt to cross a highway in the face of oncoming
> > traffic are surely willfully obstructing the free passage along a public
> > highway which is actually the point I was making in the paragraph you
> > cut.

> No, legally, they're not. You're not obstructing free passage unless you're
> actually stopped. Any parked car on any public road /is/ legally
> obstructing free passage, and consequently parking on the road is
> technically illegal anywhere in Britain, irrespective of yellow lines. But
> it you are actually moving across the road, you're not obstructing it.

That might be the way you interpret the act but the language employed
does not support you. Parked cars obstruct the road only if they impede
the free flow of traffic (hence the need for statutory parking
restrictions where they do not). Pedestrians forcing traffic to stop so
that the pedestrian can cross the road are indubitably obstructing the
free passage along a public highway.

> But to put it simply for you, again: pedestrians have a /right/ to cross
> the road; you have a /licence/ to drive along it. A right always trumps a
> licence.

More nonsense. Pedestrians just don't have the absolute right to cross a
road whatever the circumstances. In any case licence very often means
the surrender of rights by the licence giver so your all encompassing
claim for rights over licence has no value.

-- 
Roger Chapman

The message <ose0v3-uql.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>
from Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> contains these words:

> >> Pedestrians have right of way when they have right of way; in any given
> >> interaction, away from a crossing, there's an even chance that the
> >> pedestrian will have right of way.
> > 
> > You may think that but can you point to any statute or case law that
> > backs up your opinion.
> > 
> >> But what is clearly different is that
> >> the pedestrian has an absolute, inalienable right to use the road, and
> >> the motorist does not. The road is there for pedestrians, and motorists
> >> may use it on sufferance provided they behave themselves.
> > 
> > Roads are there primarily for wheeled traffic. Pavements are there for
> > pedestrians. There is nothing inalienable* about pedestrians rights.

> No? Where's your pedestrian's licence, then? You don't have one because you
> don't need one. Your right as a pedestrian to use the road
> is /inalienable/. That means, /it cannot be taken away/. Your driver's
> licence, on the other hand, can be taken way, suspended, endorsed, or
> revoked.

All I need to do to answer that point is to reinstate the sentence you
deviously deleted:

"There is nothing inalienable* about pedestrians rights. All
that is required to remove or modify their right to use roads is an Act
of Parliament."

However I will add that pedestrians inalienable rights have already been
severely compromised in the case of motorways and cycle tracks which can
also be made no go areas for pedestrians.

> > Most motorists do indeed need a licence to use a public
> > road which can be taken away in certain circumstances but to call that
> > "on sufferance" is to misunderstand the meaning of the word almost as
> > completely as the slave owners who signed the US Declaration of
> > Independence misunderstood the meaning of their own words.

> Again, I used on sufferance in the precise meaning of the term. A motorist
> is suffered to continue to be a motorist precisely so long as he behaves.
> If he doesn't behave, his licence is suspended.

To be precise:

<Collin>

"Sufferance - tolerance arising from failure to prohibit; tacit permission"

"Tacit - implied or inferred without direct expression; understood"

"Licence - formal permission or exemption"

QED

> > *Unalienable apparently in the Declaration of Independence.

> What declaration of independence? Do you, perchance mean the Declaration of
> Arbroath? As far as I can recall, that's the only declaration of
> independence in British history. 

You have a very limited understanding of British history then.

The (well known) Declaration of Independence is where all that rubbish
about inalienable rights originated. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness might not be alienable (ie transferable) but there are
undoubtedly forfeitable.

-- 
Roger Chapman

In message <451e11c9$0$16545$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, at 
07:42:13 on Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Paul Boyd <usenet@pn.is.crap> remarked:
>> Pedestrians who attempt to cross a highway in the face of oncoming
>> traffic are surely willfully obstructing the free passage along a public
>> highway which is actually the point I was making in the paragraph you
>> cut.
>
>Perhaps you should try it - in Telford.
>
>(For non-cyclists on this thread, a cyclist was prosecuted for riding 
>on the road in Telford, and fined by the same judge who let off the 
>copper doing 180-odd mph on a motorway.)

That was a cyclist, not a pedestrian. And the judgement did seem a 
little odd - holding up the traffic behind on a narrow road.
-- 
Roland Perry

in message <5zZKqYICfaHFFwSr@graigroad.demon.co.uk>, W. D. Grey
('Bill@graigroad.demon.co.uk') wrote:

> In article <7rg0v3-fvn.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>, Simon
> Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> writes
>>But to put it simply for you, again: pedestrians have a /right/ to cross
>>the road; you have a /licence/ to drive along it. A right always trumps a
>>licence.
> 
> They do not have a right to "Walk unheedingly into the path of an
> oncoming vehicle"  AKA jaywalking !!!

Not in the United States, no. But all the groups to which this is posted
are UK groups, and in the UK pedestrians have precisely that right. Do
read your own laws, and not keep thinking American ones apply.

-- 
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

              ---===***<<< This space to let! >>>***===---
        Yes! You, too, can SPAM in the Famous Brooke Rotating .sig!
              ---===***<<< Only $300 per line >>>***===---

Roger wrote on 30/09/2006 08:50 +0100:
> 
> To be precise:
> 
> <Collin>
> 
> "Sufferance - tolerance arising from failure to prohibit; tacit permission"
>

You need a proper dictionary ;-)

OED: II. 6. Sanction, consent, or acquiescence, implied by 
non-intervention; permission, leave; toleration, indulgence.



-- 
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using 
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

in message <3130303031313434451E2FCA88@nospam.zetnet.co.uk>, Roger
('roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk') wrote:

> The message <ose0v3-uql.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>
> from Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> contains these words:
> 
>> >> Pedestrians have right of way when they have right of way; in any
>> >> given interaction, away from a crossing, there's an even chance that
>> >> the pedestrian will have right of way.
>> > 
>> > You may think that but can you point to any statute or case law that
>> > backs up your opinion.
>> > 
>> >> But what is clearly different is that
>> >> the pedestrian has an absolute, inalienable right to use the road,
>> >> and the motorist does not. The road is there for pedestrians, and
>> >> motorists may use it on sufferance provided they behave themselves.
>> > 
>> > Roads are there primarily for wheeled traffic. Pavements are there for
>> > pedestrians. There is nothing inalienable* about pedestrians rights.
> 
>> No? Where's your pedestrian's licence, then? You don't have one because
>> you don't need one. Your right as a pedestrian to use the road
>> is /inalienable/. That means, /it cannot be taken away/. Your driver's
>> licence, on the other hand, can be taken way, suspended, endorsed, or
>> revoked.
> 
> All I need to do to answer that point is to reinstate the sentence you
> deviously deleted:
> 
> "There is nothing inalienable* about pedestrians rights. All
> that is required to remove or modify their right to use roads is an Act
> of Parliament."

Yes, which hasn't been passed because it hasn't been tabled - and won't be.
I didn't think it merited comment.

-- 
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
        Windows 95:
                You, you, you! You make a grown man cry...
                                                M. Jagger/K. Richards

The message <4o6oo1Fd8ii7U1@individual.net>
from Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> contains these words:

> Roger wrote on 30/09/2006 08:50 +0100:
> > 
> > To be precise:
> > 
> > <Collin>
> > 
> > "Sufferance - tolerance arising from failure to prohibit; tacit
> > permission"
> >

> You need a proper dictionary ;-)

> OED: II. 6. Sanction, consent, or acquiescence, implied by 
> non-intervention; permission, leave; toleration, indulgence.

I have several dictionaries.

The Concise Oxford says:

"tacit consent, abstinence from objection"

But all three definitions are broadly the same (as they should be) and
in no way equate to licence.

<Concise Oxford>

" a permit from an authority to own or use something (esp. a dog, gun,
television set, or vehicle), do something (esp. marry, print something,
preach, or drive on a public road), or carry on a trade (esp. in
alcoholic liquor)."

I don't have access to the OED but Sufferance in my version of the
Shorter Oxford is notable for what it doesn't include.

"Sanction, consent, or acquiescence, implied by non-intervention;
toleration, indulgence."

In common parlance sufferance is what you can get away with, licence is
what you have been given the right to do.

-- 
Roger Chapman

W. D. Grey wrote:
> your head up your arse

Ah! the insults start to fly! OK ...

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we
say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions
printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather
kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in
the Islets of Langerhans.

You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a
cad, and a weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on a
weasel's rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench,
a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at
the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are
a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. You are a technicolor yawn.
And did I mention that you smell?

You are a squeaking rat, a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal bagpipe
player. You were not born. You were hatched into an unwilling world
that rejects the likes of you. You didn't crawl out of a normal egg,
either, but rather a mutant maggot egg rejected by an evil scientist
as being below his low standards. Your alleged parents abandoned you
at birth and then died of shame in recognition of what they had done
to an unsuspecting world. They were a bit late.

Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting
to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a
nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able
to access it ever so much more rapidly. If cluelessness were crude
oil, your scalp would be crawling with caribou.

You are a thick-headed trog. I have seen skeet with more sense than
you have. You are a few bricks short of a full load, a few cards short
of a full deck, a few bytes short of a full core dump, and a few
chromosomes short of a full human. Worse than that, you top-post. God
created houseflies, cockroaches, maggots, mosquitos, fleas, ticks,
slugs, leeches, and intestinal parasites, then he lowered his
standards and made you. I take it back; God didn't make you. You are
Satan's spawn. You are Evil beyond comprehension, half-living in the
slough of despair. You are the entropy which will claim us all. You
are a green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered inbred
trout-defiler. You make Ebola look good.

You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with
you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in
a land that reality forgot. You are not ANSI compliant and your markup
doesn't validate. You have a couple of address lines shorted together.
You should be promoted to Engineering Manager.

Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to be
read? Everyone plonked you long ago. Do you fantasize that your
tantrums and conniption fits could possibly be worth the $0.000000001
worth of electricity used to send them? Your life is one big
W.O.M.B.A.T. and your future doesn't look promising either. We need to
trace your bloodline and terminate all siblings and cousins in order
to cleanse humanity of your polluted genes. The good news is that no
normal human would ever mate with you, so we won't have to go into the
sewers in search of your git.

You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
loathsome disease, a drooling inbred cross-eyed toesucker. You make
Quakers shout and strike Pentecostals silent. You have a version 1.0
mind in a version 6.12 world. Your mother had to tie a pork chop
around your neck just to get your dog to play with you. You think
that HTTP://WWW.GUYMACON.COM/FUN/INSULT/INDEX.HTM is the name of a
rock band. You believe that P.D.Q. Bach is the greatest composer who
ever lived. You prefer L. Ron Hubbard to Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You would watch test patterns
all day if the other inmates would let you.

On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are
deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
Spammers look down on you. Phone sex operators hang up on you.
Telemarketers refuse to be seen in public with you. You are the source
of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.
May you choke on your own foolish opinions. You are a Pusillanimous
galactophage and you wear your sister's training bra. Don't bother
opening the door when you leave - you should be able to slime your
way out underneath. I hope that when you get home your mother runs
out from under the porch and bites you.

You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock.
You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted
boggish foot-licking half-twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You
gormless crook-pated tosser. You bloody churlish boil-brained clotpole
ponce. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You cockered
bum-bailey poofter. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You
dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. May your
spouse be blessed with many bastards.

You are so clueless that if you dressed in a clue skin, doused yourself
in clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny
clues at the height of clue mating season, you still would not have a
clue. If you were a movie you would be a double feature;
_Battlefield_Earth_ and _Moron_Movies_II_. You would be out of focus.

You are a fiend and a sniveling coward, and you have bad breath. You
are the unholy spawn of a bandy-legged hobo and a syphilitic camel.
You wear strangely mismatched clothing with oddly placed stains. You
are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just knowing that
you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go
away. You are jetsam who dreams of becoming flotsam. You won't make
it. I beg for sweet death to come and remove me from a world which
became unbearable when you crawled out of a harpy's lair.

It is hard to believe how incredibly stupid you are. Stupid as a stone
that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that you have traveled
far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to
a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium.
Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid.
Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one
minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot
be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid.
This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure
extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws
of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of
stupid. After this experience, you may not hear from me for a while.
I don't think that I can summon the strength left to mock your moronic
opinions and malformed comments about boring trivia or your other
drivel. Duh.

The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped
away most of your of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't
really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was
pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a
load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after
you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal"
people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering.
But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this
world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this
was true in your case then I would have never have exposed myself to
what you wrote. It just wouldn't have been "right." Sort of like
parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the
emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a
demand on you.

P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable,
belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame,
self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent,
libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, EDLINoid,
illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic,
fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim,
crazy, weird, dyspeptic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim,
unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive,
mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, and Generally Not Good.

I hope this helps...

-- 
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Are you still here? The message is over. Shoo! Go away!

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Roger said the following on 29/09/2006 21:56:
> 
>> Pedestrians who attempt to cross a highway in the face of oncoming
>> traffic are surely willfully obstructing the free passage along a public
>> highway which is actually the point I was making in the paragraph you
>> cut.
> 
> Perhaps you should try it - in Telford.
> 
> (For non-cyclists on this thread, a cyclist was prosecuted for riding on 
> the road in Telford, and fined by the same judge who let off the copper 
> doing 180-odd mph on a motorway.)
> 
This is a calumny and a lie! He was /only/ clocked doing 159mph.

(contd in threads: Jeremy Clarkson, safe speed,  etc)

Don Whybrow wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>
>> (For non-cyclists on this thread, a cyclist was prosecuted for riding 
>> on the road in Telford, and fined by the same judge who let off the 
>> copper doing 180-odd mph on a motorway.)
> 
> 180? I thought he was _only_ doing 159.
> 
Rays!

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:15:13 +0100, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com>
wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote on 30/09/2006 13:31 +0100:
>>>
>>> Indeed, the probability of an accident goes up with speed by simple 
>>> collision cross section mathematics.  Say for example it takes two 
>>> seconds for a pedestrian to cross the lane.  At thirty miles an hour, 
>>> any car within 88ft of the pedestrian when they start crossing will hit 
>>> them; at 60mph any car within 176ft of the pedestrian will hit them 
>>> (assuming no braking or avoidance actions)
>> 
>> 
>> I'm asuming that Tony is speaking with tongue-in-cheek here, for
>> increased speed per se does _not_ increase the probability of a
>> collision - indeed it reduces it; but there are clearly enough posters
>> whose demonstrated lack of numerical skills (Sornson, Ozark, Zaumen,
>> Starr, and the like) means that they are not up to figuring this out
>> for themselves.
>> 
>> The chance that a collison will occur depends upon the percentage of
>> time that the same space will be occupied by two objects at the same
>> time.  If there is only one motorcar and one pedestrian, increased
>> speed on the part of either decreases the time they occupy that space,
>> and thus decreases the probability.  
>> 
>
>Thus demonstrating you lack of understanding of collision rates.  Lets 
>assume the case where the pedestrian is stationary and the car takes no 
>avoiding action.  

No, let's not.   Such a situation is both too simple and too specious
to be worth considering.

>You would claim that the faster car was less likely to 
>hit the pedestrian as they occupied the same space for less time. 

No I would not. The change from a finite to an infinite amount of time
occupied in the collision space by the pedestrian raises the
probability of a collision to unity, given any speed of a motorcar
above zero.


>Clearly a wrong answer.


Yes, but it's yours, not mine.

in message <JxWmaTB99qHFFwUX@graigroad.demon.co.uk>, W. D. Grey
('Bill@graigroad.demon.co.uk') wrote:

> In article <nhl1v3-8sv.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>, Simon
> Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> writes
>>in message <5zZKqYICfaHFFwSr@graigroad.demon.co.uk>, W. D. Grey
>>('Bill@graigroad.demon.co.uk') wrote:
>>
>>> In article <7rg0v3-fvn.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>, Simon
>>> Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> writes
>>>>But to put it simply for you, again: pedestrians have a /right/ to
>>>>cross the road; you have a /licence/ to drive along it. A right always
>>>>trumps a licence.
>>>
>>> They do not have a right to "Walk unheedingly into the path of an
>>> oncoming vehicle"  AKA jaywalking !!!
>>
>>Not in the United States, no. But all the groups to which this is posted
>>are UK groups, and in the UK pedestrians have precisely that right. Do
>>read your own laws, and not keep thinking American ones apply.
> 
> I have no interest in American Law nor do I know American Law so why
> bring that into it.

Because 'jaywalking' is only an offence in the United States. In the United
Kingdom, pedestrians have a right to cross the road whereever they like,
and 'a driver is bound to use due care to avoid driving against any person
crossing the highway on foot'. Yes, it's that darned Highways Act, again.

-- 
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

        ;; It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
        ;; Voltaire                     RIP Dr David Kelly 1945-2004

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote on 01/10/2006 00:44 +0100:
>>>
>> Thus demonstrating you lack of understanding of collision rates.  Lets 
>> assume the case where the pedestrian is stationary and the car takes no 
>> avoiding action.  
> 
> No, let's not.   Such a situation is both too simple and too specious
> to be worth considering.
> 

B****r, I hadn't spotted the cross posting had let the notorious jtaylor 
troll out of my urc kill file.  Back in your box laddie <plonk>

-- 
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using 
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

grannyhalfstep wrote:
> Panicky Top Gear fans and general petrolheads are piling onto this page
>

Damn.  Came to this thread thinking it was a vote for people's
favourite gear, rather than an off topic rant.

Ah well.

Jell

PS.  What IS your favourite bit of gear?  (Mine's a candle lantern)

Jules wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:52:01 -0700, grannyhalfstep wrote:
>> amuse/depress yourself by reading some of the comments supporting the
>> programme. If you don't think there's anything wrong with the programme,
>> you can even check the Sun website, and read about '315mph jet car smash
>> victim, TV star Richard Hammond' stuff like this:
>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006440152,,00.html
> 
> I was looking at some of the comments on the BBC news website the other
> day - a couple of observations:
> 
> 1) It was quite amazing how some people seemed able to translate driving
> at high speeds in a specialist car on a closed track to that of driving a
> regular car on a public road. It was as though they picked only "car",
> "315mph" and "crash" out of all that text, and then some sort of knee-jerk
> "oh my God, won't somebody please think of the children" attitude kicked
> in.
> 
> 2) Some people evidently don't have any hobbies or interests and have
> never done anything purely for the fun or challenge of it, judging by the
> "what's the point" comments. I could just as easily say the same about
> (picking something at random) knitting - but I'm intelligent enough to
> realise that even though that wouldn't be enjoyable to me, others do take
> pleasure from it and it would be plain rude to try and tell them they
> their interests were stupid and they had to stop.
> 
> 

Nice one Jules. I've been enjoying the fells and crags since my student 
years (a long time ago now) but my passion for motor sport predates that 
(my only real hero being Jim Clark). I spent the thick end of 20 years 
competing as a navigator in rallying (a great way to see the peak 
district at night!).

There is a right time and place for everything.

Roy.

The message <1159693559.460124.101400@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
from "Jell" <jellsmail@gmail.com> contains these words:

> PS.  What IS your favourite bit of gear?  (Mine's a candle lantern)

Mine's a gps.

I think that might be on topic in all three ngs. :-)

-- 
Roger Chapman

On 30/09/2006 22:12, Marcus Red said,

> This is a calumny and a lie! He was /only/ clocked doing 159mph.

Yes - I had already owned up to a typo some time before your post.  I 
meant to type "150-odd", but the 5 and 8 keys being next to each other 
got tripped over!

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:40:38 +0100, Paul Boyd <no_such@ddress.com> wrote:
>  On 30/09/2006 22:12, Marcus Red said,
> 
> > This is a calumny and a lie! He was /only/ clocked doing 159mph.
> 
>  Yes - I had already owned up to a typo some time before your post.  I 
>  meant to type "150-odd", but the 5 and 8 keys being next to each other 
>  got tripped over!

Actually, I don't think he was clocked doing anything - that was part 
of teh case - he claimed he wasn't goping as fast as teh prosecution 
said he was going.
 
regards,  Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

Jell wrote:

> PS.  What IS your favourite bit of gear?  (Mine's a candle lantern)

I suppose it would have to be the Lumicycle.

Marcus Red wrote:

> This is a calumny and a lie! He was /only/ clocked doing 159mph.
>
> (contd in threads: Jeremy Clarkson, safe speed,  etc)

And my grate frend Uncle Marvo wishes to know what has to be done to a
Vectra to allow it to go half as fast without the cambelt breaking...

-- 
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
My only hope in life is to die before I get my comeuppence.

In message <4o7ji3Fda6bbU1@individual.net>
          Matt B <matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
[snip]
> > Your driver's
> > licence, on the other hand, can be taken way, suspended, endorsed, or
> > revoked.
> 
> Not if you haven't committed any offences for which those penalties 
> apply.  Once you have a licence you keep it, if you obey the rules.
> 

You can have your licence revoked on grounds of ill-health and as far as
I know it isn't an offence to suffer ill-health.

Mike
-- 
 o/ \\    //        |\   ,_ o      Mike Clark
<\__,\\  //   __o   | \ /  /\,   "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
 ">    ||   _`\<,_  |__\  \> |  immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
  `    ||  (_)/ (_) |   \corn computer user"

Roger wrote:
> Pedestrians forcing traffic to stop so
> that the pedestrian can cross the road are indubitably obstructing the
> free passage along a public highway.

Vehicles forcing pedestrians to stop are indubitably obstructing the free
passage of pedestrians along a public highway. 

-- 
Nigel Wade

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:44:58 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7@nospam.cam.ac.uk>
wrote:

>In message <4o7ji3Fda6bbU1@individual.net>
>          Matt B <matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>[snip]
>> > Your driver's
>> > licence, on the other hand, can be taken way, suspended, endorsed, or
>> > revoked.
>> 
>> Not if you haven't committed any offences for which those penalties 
>> apply.  Once you have a licence you keep it, if you obey the rules.
>> 
>
>You can have your licence revoked on grounds of ill-health and as far as
>I know it isn't an offence to suffer ill-health.
>
>Mike

True, or bad eyesight, or you can fail a driving test...all of which
are not offences, but do result in the permission to drive a motorcar
being withdrawn.

The message <efr10h$8po$2@south.jnrs.ja.net>
from Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> contains these words:

> > Pedestrians forcing traffic to stop so
> > that the pedestrian can cross the road are indubitably obstructing the
> > free passage along a public highway.

> Vehicles forcing pedestrians to stop are indubitably obstructing the free
> passage of pedestrians along a public highway. 

Harking back to the problem of parking are you? Pedestrians normally
find it much easier to outflank a parked vehicle than other road users.
If a road is wide enough for safe parking it is generally accepted that
parking is allowed unless formally restricted. Parking on the footway
however is on sufferance at best.

-- 
Roger Chapman

In message <c6be7b6f4e.mrc7offline@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, Mike 
Clark <mrc7@nospam.cam.ac.uk> writes
>In message <4o7ji3Fda6bbU1@individual.net>
>          Matt B <matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>[snip]
>> > Your driver's
>> > licence, on the other hand, can be taken way, suspended, endorsed, or
>> > revoked.
>>
>> Not if you haven't committed any offences for which those penalties
>> apply.  Once you have a licence you keep it, if you obey the rules.
>>
>
>You can have your licence revoked on grounds of ill-health and as far as
>I know it isn't an offence to suffer ill-health.
>
>Mike

Unless you live in Erewhon.

-- 
Martin Richardson
618/1554 Marilyns - aiming for 777       60/89 Donalds - only 33% to go
88/211 Irish Hewitts - 123 it's easy     20/220 Corbetts - only(!)200 to go

Martin Richardson wrote on 02/10/2006 17:12 +0100:
> 
> Unless you live in Erewhon.
> 

But everyone knows that's a backward country ;-)

-- 
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using 
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

On 2006-10-02, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> wrote:
> Martin Richardson wrote on 02/10/2006 17:12 +0100:
>> 
>> Unless you live in Erewhon.
>> 
>
> But everyone knows that's a backward country ;-)

I dunno, certain of our esteemed political masters (hem hem) seem to have
spent quite some time studying at the Universities of Unreason, so there
must be something going for it :)

Regards,

-david

David Nutter wrote on 02/10/2006 19:25 +0100:
> On 2006-10-02, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> wrote:
>> Martin Richardson wrote on 02/10/2006 17:12 +0100:
>>> Unless you live in Erewhon.
>>>
>> But everyone knows that's a backward country ;-)
> 
> I dunno, certain of our esteemed political masters (hem hem) seem to have
> spent quite some time studying at the Universities of Unreason, so there
> must be something going for it :)
> 

And we should encourage them to keep studying.  Its when they stop 
studying and try to start to do something with what they've learnt that 
the trouble starts ;-)

-- 
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using 
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Simon Bennett wrote:
> Jell wrote:
>
> > PS.  What IS your favourite bit of gear?  (Mine's a candle lantern)
>
> I suppose it would have to be the Lumicycle.

What's a Lumicycle?

Jell

In article <1159857658.069442.134380@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Jell wrote:
>
>Simon Bennett wrote:
>> Jell wrote:
>>
>> > PS.  What IS your favourite bit of gear?  (Mine's a candle lantern)
>>
>> I suppose it would have to be the Lumicycle.
>
>What's a Lumicycle?

A not-candle lantern. http://www.lumicycle.com

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:15:13 +0100, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote on 30/09/2006 13:31 +0100:
>>>> Indeed, the probability of an accident goes up with speed by simple 
>>>> collision cross section mathematics.  Say for example it takes two 
>>>> seconds for a pedestrian to cross the lane.  At thirty miles an hour, 
>>>> any car within 88ft of the pedestrian when they start crossing will hit 
>>>> them; at 60mph any car within 176ft of the pedestrian will hit them 
>>>> (assuming no braking or avoidance actions)
>>>
>>> I'm asuming that Tony is speaking with tongue-in-cheek here, for
>>> increased speed per se does _not_ increase the probability of a
>>> collision - indeed it reduces it; but there are clearly enough posters
>>> whose demonstrated lack of numerical skills (Sornson, Ozark, Zaumen,
>>> Starr, and the like) means that they are not up to figuring this out
>>> for themselves.
>>>
>>> The chance that a collison will occur depends upon the percentage of
>>> time that the same space will be occupied by two objects at the same
>>> time.  If there is only one motorcar and one pedestrian, increased
>>> speed on the part of either decreases the time they occupy that space,
>>> and thus decreases the probability.  
>>>
>> Thus demonstrating you lack of understanding of collision rates.  Lets 
>> assume the case where the pedestrian is stationary and the car takes no 
>> avoiding action.  
> 
> No, let's not.   Such a situation is both too simple and too specious
> to be worth considering.
> 
>> You would claim that the faster car was less likely to 
>> hit the pedestrian as they occupied the same space for less time. 
> 
> No I would not. The change from a finite to an infinite amount of time
> occupied in the collision space by the pedestrian raises the
> probability of a collision to unity, given any speed of a motorcar
> above zero.
> 
> 
>> Clearly a wrong answer.
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's yours, not mine.
> 

I'd rather be run down by a slow car than a fast one. The probability of 
such an event however may be calculated as the squareiness of my eyes 
multiplied by the number of minutes since I got out of bed. All cubed, 
if I take the main road to work.

Roger wrote:
> "The Highways Act 1835 also makes obstruction an offence and leads to
> the same fines. Both of these were updated by the Highways Act 1980
> which says it is an offence to willfully obstruct the free passage along
> a public highway."

You missed a bit.  The bit was "without lawful excuse or authority".  In
other words, this is subject to existing legal rights (e.g. the common
law right of passage and repassage) and does not supersede them.


-dan