Any law can be misused - why pick on RIPA especially? And while the
GAK part hasn't even got a draft Code of Practice, speculation is
moot.

Because fining pavement cyclists just isn't in the same league. Also, does
a code of practice stop it being misused, or merely enable people to feel
justifiably upset when it's disregarded in their case?

Mark Thompson wrote in
. 1.4:

then that new law could just as easily have the GAK
within it.

Nope.

err, yes it could.

By nope I mean it's harder to get dodgy legislation through the Lords.
They tend to amend out many of the more silly bits.

Getting a law through that refers to a bit of existing legislation is
going to be easier than introducing the dodgy bit of legislation with
every law that you want covered by it.

Just how long will the Lords exist?

--
Chris

In message , at
16:14:54 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mark Thompson
remarked:
Any law can be misused - why pick on RIPA especially? And while the
GAK part hasn't even got a draft Code of Practice, speculation is
moot.

Because fining pavement cyclists just isn't in the same league. Also, does
a code of practice stop it being misused, or merely enable people to feel
justifiably upset when it's disregarded in their case?

As with all things, the existence of a rule gives society a benchmark to
judge transgressors against.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
16:12:19 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mark Thompson
remarked:
By nope I mean it's harder to get dodgy legislation through the Lords.
They tend to amend out many of the more silly bits.

Oh, sorry, I thought we were discussing some future government that was
going to ride roughshod over established principles.

Getting a law through that refers to a bit of existing legislation is going
to be easier than introducing the dodgy bit of legislation with every law
that you want covered by it.

New laws don't refer to RIPA, RIPA refers to them (by only being active
when a crime has been specified as being serious enough).
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Clive Coleman wrote:

In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes

I would make the observation, though, that a bus driver disgregarding
their training and behaving in a dangerous manner is no less
irrational than a cyclist disregarding all common sense and nehaving
in a dangerous manner.

O.K. This argument has gone far enough, and to be honest it's all about
point scoring and no facts are allowed to intervene.

Yay for usenet!

If a cyclist has to brake hard at any obstruction be it traffic lights,
road works what ever he is prepared and it's his own fault if he's not.
A bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70
other persons who are not expecting sudden braking,

Is it common to be carrying 70 people who've never been on a bus before?

Also, i'm not sure that being on a bus when it brakes hard and being on a
bike when it is hit by a bus are the same magnitude of injury - it may
well be that the latter is 70 times worse than the former (especially
given that 90% of the time, you'll be sitting down). I'm not saying it's
never right to not brake, but it's not as clear cut as you make out.

Also, i haven't been following this thread, but from this one post, you
really sound like a dangerous lunatic who advocates running over cyclists.
Just thought i'd let you know.

tom

--
Memes don't exist. Tell your friends.

In message ,
Tom Anderson writes

Also, i'm not sure that being on a bus when it brakes hard and being on
a bike when it is hit by a bus are the same magnitude of injury - it
may well be that the latter is 70 times worse than the former
(especially given that 90% of the time, you'll be sitting down). I'm
not saying it's never right to not brake, but it's not as clear cut as
you make out.

Also, i haven't been following this thread, but from this one post, you
really sound like a dangerous lunatic who advocates running over
cyclists. Just thought i'd let you know.

tom
You've never driven a bus then, that is obvious, and if you think I'm a
lunatic get me off the roads before other cyclists think they're Gods
gift to London.
--
Clive.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:44:02 +0100, Mrs Redboots
wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 26 Oct
2004:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:21:23 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

What I actually said:

Alternatively, who can I complain to about all the ****s on bikes who
think that red lights - particularly those at pedestrian crossing -
somehow don't count for them? Especially annoying are the ones who
think they're entitled to shout abuse at the pedestrians they have to
swerve round them because they're already half way across the road.
Funny, that, isn't it? Pedestrians having the temerity to cross a
road when the lights are in their favour, just because to
knobend-in-lycra is too impatient to obey the red and wait a few
seconds.

Now, where is, "the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely lawless," or
any, "justification fro dangerous behaviour by bus drivers"?

If you look up there a bit, in the text you've quoted, you are
apparently saying that the lawless behaviour of cyclists is a valid
response to a query regarding the correct destination of a complaint
about bus driver behaviour.

Sorry, but I have to intervene here, as this is ********! Surely Nick
was just introducing a red herring into the original thread, something
we all do from time to time. Or, perhaps "red herring" is a little
harsh - a thought prompted by the original subject of the thread, but
only related to it insofar as it involved another type of occasionally
irritating/dangerous road user.

Yeah, pretty much. Guy's warped logic that somehow me denying what he
suggested - and what I clearly didn't say - "proved" his false
conclusion probably says far more about him than anyone else....
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:25:50 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

Yeah, pretty much. Guy's warped logic that somehow me denying what he
suggested - and what I clearly didn't say - "proved" his false
conclusion probably says far more about him than anyone else....

Can you see out of your mouth with your head up there?

Just curious.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On 26 Oct 2004 16:14:54 GMT someone who may be Mark Thompson
wrote this:-

Also, does a code of practice stop it being misused,

Of course not. Especially when "supervision" will consist of a Mr
Hutton who says, "well done chaps, keep up the good work", no matter
what has happened.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Clive Coleman wrote:

In message ,
Tom Anderson writes

Also, i'm not sure that being on a bus when it brakes hard and being on
a bike when it is hit by a bus are the same magnitude of injury - it
may well be that the latter is 70 times worse than the former
(especially given that 90% of the time, you'll be sitting down). I'm
not saying it's never right to not brake, but it's not as clear cut as
you make out.

Also, i haven't been following this thread, but from this one post, you
really sound like a dangerous lunatic who advocates running over
cyclists. Just thought i'd let you know.

You've never driven a bus then, that is obvious,

You're a perceptive chap.

and if you think I'm a lunatic get me off the roads before other
cyclists think they're Gods gift to London.

I didn't say i thought you were a lunatic, just that your post made it
sound like it - i assume you're just a bit worked up by the argument. You
need to relax - maybe go for a swim, or have a drink, or, hey, how about a
nice bike ride?



tom

--
I do not think we will have to wait for very long.