Doug, was this you?

On 20 Sep, 20:10, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:47:44 -0700 (PDT), BrianW





wrote:
On 20 Sep, 16:40, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 02:30:44 -0700 (PDT), BrianW (Zit)

wrote:
On 20 Sep, 06:59, Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 13:51, Judith M Smith wrote: On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070...

Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him?

What is it - a sexual ?attraction?

Blackhead is blinded by obsessive love turned sour. So much so in his
confused state he has targeted the wrong person! There must be a
sexual component there surely?

Yup, I'm in lurve with this old turd:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8737107@N04/3742475633/

Next time you see him, Doug, would you tell him?

I don't know him - I have never seen him - it was just obvious that
you are attracted to him - 80% of your posts was it?

Mmmm. �That's the third time you've said that today. �Is it
Alzheimer's? �Or are you just of limited intelligence?

Hello Zit - why do you follow Doug about -sexual attraction perhaps.
What is it - 80% of your posts?

Hello "judith" - is that dribble running down your chin, or something
less savoury?

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:28:25 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Cars cannot be blamed for damaged pavements.
You say. But without providing any evidence.
The evidence is that if cars /are/ damaging them, and you haven't
provided any evidence to support that claim, then the pavements must
have been inadequately constructed - so therefore the cars are /not/ to
blame, it is the pavement "supplier"!

You failed (again) to cite evidence, merely stating an opinion which
is at odds with reality.

You would not blame the supplier of your carpet if driving a car over
it caused damage, you would blame them if walking on it caused damage.

No. But then I wouldn't reasonably expect a motor vehicle to drive
across my carpet.

It's a matter of fitness for purpose.

Exactly, and a pavement which cannot tolerate occasional use by a motor
vehicle isn't.

The design purpose of a footway
is not the carriage of motor traffic, so if motor traffic which enters
(illegally) onto the footway causes damage then that does not mean the
footway is not fit for purpose.

However, it /should/ tolerate legal use by legal motor traffic such as
council repair vehicles, ambulances, sweeping machines, BT vehicles,
etc., etc., etc.

Whether or not it is built to the
intended standard, it is not built to a standard sufficient to carry
motor traffic, and it's not supposed to be;

Except that as they can, and sometimes do, legitimately use it, then
obviously it /should/ be capable.

failure does not indicate
whether it meets the lower standard to which footways are built, it
merely indicates that it has not met a much higher standard to which
it was intentionally /not/ built for sound economic reasons.

No. It indicates that, either; the damage wasn't caused by motor
vehicles as described, or that the pavement wasn't built to withstand
the reasonably anticipated level and nature of use of the pavement.

--
Matt B

Tom Crispin wrote:

BrianW wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...pensioner.html

What can't a charge of manslaughter be considered where a death has
been caused by negligent behaviour be it by motor vehicle driver,
motorcyclist, cyclist, mobility scooter driver, or even a runner.

Assuming that to be a question (and assuming you meant "why" rather then
"what"), the answer is that the law doesn't permit it.

All that should be need to be proved is that the standard of care for
others' safety fell far below that which could be considered
reasonable.

That's an opinion masquerading as an argument.

On 20 Sep, 14:09, John Wright wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 13:51, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070....
Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him?

What is it - a sexual *attraction?

Blackhead is blinded by obsessive love turned sour. So much so in his
confused state he has targeted the wrong person! There must be a
sexual component there surely?

Anyway, back on topic, I have been posting elsewhere about
discrimination against disabled cyclists and this case clearly
illustrates my point. Cars and mobility scooters on pavements are much
more dangerous that bicycles but all we seem to hear about is cycling
on pavements.

Cars don't drive on pavements unless something is seriously amiss or
there is a legal arrangement in place for them to drive over the pavement..

Cyclists and mobility scooters appear to do it as a matter of course.

But the least dangerous are cyclists. A car could easily run over a
small child and kill them even at very slow speed.

I never cease to be amazed that motorists have been allowed to street
garage their cars 24/7 on public roads, often for free, but allowing
them legally on pavements is the giddy limit!

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 20 Sep, 10:30, BrianW wrote:
On 20 Sep, 06:59, Doug wrote:

On 19 Sep, 13:51, Judith M Smith wrote: On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070...

Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him?

What is it - a sexual attraction?

Blackhead is blinded by obsessive love turned sour. So much so in his
confused state he has targeted the wrong person! There must be a
sexual component there surely?

Yup, I'm in lurve with this old turd:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8737107@N04/3742475633/

Next time you see him, Doug, would you tell him?

I think he probably knows and finds it embarrassing. Also it is a bit
like being stalked by you. Not my problem though except that you
respond to my posts instead of his. Is this what psychiatrists mean by
'transference'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
The problem is in not recognising there is a problem.

On 20 Sep, 22:04, Matt B wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:28:25 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Cars cannot be blamed for damaged pavements.
You say. *But without providing any evidence.
The evidence is that if cars /are/ damaging them, and you haven't
provided any evidence to support that claim, then the pavements must
have been inadequately constructed - so therefore the cars are /not/ to
blame, it is the pavement "supplier"!

You failed (again) to cite evidence, merely stating an opinion which
is at odds with reality.

You would not blame the supplier of your carpet if driving a car over
it caused damage, you would blame them if walking on it caused damage.

No. *But then I wouldn't reasonably expect a motor vehicle to drive
across my carpet.

It's a matter of fitness for purpose.

Exactly, and a pavement which cannot tolerate occasional use by a motor
vehicle isn't.

The design purpose of a footway
is not the carriage of motor traffic, so if motor traffic which enters
(illegally) onto the footway causes damage then that does not mean the
footway is not fit for purpose. *

However, it /should/ tolerate legal use by legal motor traffic such as
council repair vehicles, ambulances, sweeping machines, BT vehicles,
etc., etc., etc.

Whether or not it is built to the
intended standard, it is not built to a standard sufficient to carry
motor traffic, and it's not supposed to be;

Except that as they can, and sometimes do, legitimately use it, then
obviously it /should/ be capable.

failure does not indicate
whether it meets the lower standard to which footways are built, it
merely indicates that it has not met a much higher standard to which
it was intentionally /not/ built for sound economic reasons.

No. *It indicates that, either; the damage wasn't caused by motor
vehicles as described, or that the pavement wasn't built to withstand
the reasonably anticipated level and nature of use of the pavement.

Apart from access I see no reason whatsoever why cars should be
allowed to drive on pavements. The excuse used by the DfT is that
there is nowhere else to put them and if they are left in the road
they will impede traffic. Tough! The motorists should either move
somewhere else or give up their car. Why should they be legally
allowed, as the DfT admits, to present a hazard to pedestrians and
damage pavements?

Clearly the car culture is out-of-control and has been for quite some
time. And then they wonder why the government feebly tries to crack
down on them, with speed cameras, fines, taxes etc.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

No. Â*It indicates that, either; the damage wasn't caused by motor
vehicles as described, or that the pavement wasn't built to withstand
the reasonably anticipated level and nature of use of the pavement.

Apart from access I see no reason whatsoever why cars should be allowed
to drive on pavements.

Another one who equates "motor vehicles" with "private cars only", and
ignores the requirements of commercial vehicles for access to buildings
and underground utilities, as well as street cleaning and other services.

Doug wrote:
On 20 Sep, 14:09, John Wright wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 13:51, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070...
Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him?

What is it - a sexual attraction?

Blackhead is blinded by obsessive love turned sour. So much so in
his confused state he has targeted the wrong person! There must be a
sexual component there surely?

Anyway, back on topic, I have been posting elsewhere about
discrimination against disabled cyclists and this case clearly
illustrates my point. Cars and mobility scooters on pavements are
much more dangerous that bicycles but all we seem to hear about is
cycling on pavements.

Cars don't drive on pavements unless something is seriously amiss or
there is a legal arrangement in place for them to drive over the
pavement.

Cyclists and mobility scooters appear to do it as a matter of course.

But the least dangerous are cyclists.

Wrong again Doug. The least dangerous traffic are pedestrians. Everything
else can cause harm to others.

A car could easily run over a
small child and kill them even at very slow speed.

And a bicycle can knock down and kill an adult. Your point?

I never cease to be amazed that motorists have been allowed to street
garage their cars 24/7 on public roads, often for free, but allowing
them legally on pavements is the giddy limit!

Places where they are legally allowed on the pavement are remarkably few in
the UK. I've never seen one.

On 21 Sep, 08:34, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 20 Sep, 14:09, John Wright wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 13:51, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070...
Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him?

What is it - a sexual attraction?

Blackhead is blinded by obsessive love turned sour. So much so in
his confused state he has targeted the wrong person! There must be a
sexual component there surely?

Anyway, back on topic, I have been posting elsewhere about
discrimination against disabled cyclists and this case clearly
illustrates my point. Cars and mobility scooters on pavements are
much more dangerous that bicycles but all we seem to hear about is
cycling on pavements.

Cars don't drive on pavements unless something is seriously amiss or
there is a legal arrangement in place for them to drive over the
pavement.

Cyclists and mobility scooters appear to do it as a matter of course.

But the least dangerous are cyclists.

Wrong again Doug. The least dangerous traffic are pedestrians. Everything
else can cause harm to others.

A car could easily run over a
small child and kill them even at very slow speed.

And a bicycle can knock down and kill an adult. Your point?

Dangerous cars are allowed on some pavements where disabled cyclists
are not.

I never cease to be amazed that motorists have been allowed to street
garage their cars 24/7 on public roads, often for free, but allowing
them legally on pavements is the giddy limit!

Places where they are legally allowed on the pavement are remarkably few in
the UK. I've never seen one.

There are plenty in London plus all the illegal ones too. You are
likely to find them where there are narrow, neighbourhood streets with
no front gardens or home garages.

It is obviously assumed by the government that everyone should have
the right to own a car regardless of the circumstances and harmful
impact on others and despite not having somewhere to keep one.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Dangerous cars are allowed on some pavements where disabled cyclists are
not.

Give us ONE example. Just one.

It is obviously assumed by the government that everyone should have the
right to own a car regardless of the circumstances

Not quite.

Everybody should have the right to own a car provided it fulfils all the
relevant legal requirements. Of course they should. Why shouldn't they?
Same as everybody has the right to own a TV, house, pogo stick, bicycle.

How would you ration them?

and harmful impact on others

As well as MOT emission testing for existing cars and ever more stringent
emission requirements for new cars, there's umpty-seven driving laws
(some of which you've argued against the introduction of) to try to
minimise "harmful impact".

and despite not having somewhere to keep one.

Nope. Leave a car somewhere it's not legal to leave it, and you WILL get
fined. Fail to pay the fines, and it WILL get confiscated.

So - apart from any of those many, all completely incorrect, points - is
there ANY evidence to back up your claims?

Proper, hard evidence from credible sources.

You know the stuff - same as you demand off everybody who points out that
you're talking ********. Again.