Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
11-05.-2008, 08:46 AM
|
#31 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:13:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy > <pete.aron@virgin.net> said in > <6ecae2c4-fc30-489a-92aa-70af2c10d657@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>: > >>> Communist? Not me. I am not trying to force anyone out of their cars or >>> on to buses and trains and I wouldn't dream of telling people they >>> _must_ ride bicycles. What I would like to see, particularly from people >>> in the media, is an acceptance of the fact that none of us have a >>> _right_ to drive a motor car and that the shape and technology of >>> private transport must change. > >> That isn't a "fact", its your opinion. If I'm a licensed driver and my >> vehicle is legal then I have the right to use it on public roads if I >> so wish. > > No, you drive on the roads under license. The only people who use > the roads as of right are pedestrians. Your use of a motor vehicle > on a public road is strictly curtailed; not only must it be > registered, it must also have current VED and MOT, and you may be > stopped at any time and prosecuted and your driving privilege > rescinded if your driving does not remain within the codified bounds > of the Road Traffic Acts and sundry other acts of Parliament. Under > some circumstances your vehicle may be seized, immobilised or > forcibly removed. > > I don't see how driving can be seen as anything other than a > privilege subject to withdrawal, describing it as a right is both > technically and pragmatically wrong, as far as I can see. Yes, but we all know that you only see as far as is pragmatically convenient. |
|
|
11-05.-2008, 08:47 AM
|
#32 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
Marc wrote:
> Sir Jeremy wrote: >> On 10 May, 17:20, Terry Duckmanton <te...@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu> >> wrote: >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Communist? Not me. I am not trying to force anyone out of their cars or >>> on to buses and trains and I wouldn't dream of telling people they >>> _must_ ride bicycles. What I would like to see, particularly from people >>> in the media, is an acceptance of the fact that none of us have a >>> _right_ to drive a motor car and that the shape and technology of >>> private transport must change. >> >> That isn't a "fact", its your opinion. If I'm a licensed driver and my >> vehicle is legal then I have the right to use it on public roads if I >> so wish. >> > > If you are a licensed driver then you are licensed to use the road. The > clue is in the title. This was explained to me at the age of 18(30 years > ago, outside the IR offices in Cardiff) by a police office leaning in > through my car window > > "Pedestrian, cyclists and horses ( sic) have a right to be on the road, > you are licensed to be there, now be a good boy or that license will > dissapear" Does "Be a good boy" mean "Don't complain, no matter how much we rip you off"? |
|
|
|
11-05.-2008, 08:50 AM
|
#33 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
Terry Duckmanton wrote:
> Sir Jeremy wrote: >> On 10 May, 17:20, Terry Duckmanton <te...@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu> >> wrote: >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Communist? Not me. I am not trying to force anyone out of their cars or >>> on to buses and trains and I wouldn't dream of telling people they >>> _must_ ride bicycles. What I would like to see, particularly from people >>> in the media, is an acceptance of the fact that none of us have a >>> _right_ to drive a motor car and that the shape and technology of >>> private transport must change. >> >> That isn't a "fact", its your opinion. If I'm a licensed driver and my >> vehicle is legal then I have the right to use it on public roads if I >> so wish. >> > > > Perhaps I didn't make myself clear when I used the word 'right'. What I > was trying to get across was the idea of a fundamental right, rather > than a right which is earned by taking tests and paying a fee for a > licence. Too many people believe that on reaching the magic age a > licence to drive a motor vehicle should be issued automatically > regardless of the mayhem that may be caused by such actions. Nonsense. "Too many people" (whatever that may mean) certainly do not believe that. In fact, you'd have difficulty in coming up with a credible citation of a single sane person who thinks that a licence should be issued to anyone under 17 and without a test of competence to drive. |
|
|
|
11-05.-2008, 12:38 PM
|
#34 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
In article <slrng2bvip.c66.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>, Ben C
spamspam@spam.eggs says... > I certainly think those services should be paid out of tax, but that's > no reason not to whinge if you think you aren't getting value for money. Whingeing is pointless - either accept things as they are or do something about it. > > The democratic system relies on maintaining pressure on the government > and trying to make it accountable wherever possible. > The democratic system relies on the electorate thinking they can have some positive influence on the way government works - unfortunately whichever way you vote the politicians always win and the civil servants do pretty much what they want. OTOH maybe that's not such a bad thing, given the apparent cluelessness of the populace at large. |
|
|
|
11-05.-2008, 05:32 PM
|
#35 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
On 2008-05-11, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In article <slrng2bvip.c66.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>, Ben C > spamspam@spam.eggs says... > >> I certainly think those services should be paid out of tax, but that's >> no reason not to whinge if you think you aren't getting value for money. > > Whingeing is pointless - either accept things as they are or do > something about it. Whinging _is_ doing something about it. >> The democratic system relies on maintaining pressure on the government >> and trying to make it accountable wherever possible. >> > The democratic system relies on the electorate thinking they can have > some positive influence on the way government works - unfortunately > whichever way you vote the politicians always win and the civil servants > do pretty much what they want. OTOH maybe that's not such a bad thing, > given the apparent cluelessness of the populace at large. Pretty good summary. |
|
|
|
11-05.-2008, 08:06 PM
|
#36 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
Ben C wrote:
> Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> Ben C spamspam@spam.eggs says... >>> I certainly think those services should be paid out of tax, but that's >>> no reason not to whinge if you think you aren't getting value for money. >> Whingeing is pointless - either accept things as they are or do >> something about it. > Whinging _is_ doing something about it. That's true. It all contributes to the zeitgeist. And eventually, when enough people understand that there is something to be concerned about, and come to perceive that it is not "inevitable", it can influence voting patterns. We saw that the week before last. It wasn't the only factor at work, but it was one of them. |
|
|
|
11-05.-2008, 09:53 PM
|
#37 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
"Sir Jeremy" <pete.aron@virgin.net> wrote in message news:596c9e0d-d67a-49c2-a570-32509ba2444b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >Are you some sort of communist? Of course we can go on the way we are, >any problems will be fixed by advances in technology. You wish. |
|
|
|
11-05.-2008, 11:35 PM
|
#38 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
"Terry Duckmanton" <terry@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu> wrote
> > After reading this article I was left with a feeling of hopelessness. The > future for cyclists in particular and the planet in general looks pretty > bleak in the face of so much voting power in the hands of the opposition. If you think Mike Rutherford is bad in the Telegraph, have a look at his ravings in AutoExpress. I think he is as interesting as a pile up on the motorway. |
|
|
|
12-05.-2008, 01:11 AM
|
#39 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
On 10 May, 23:25, Terry Duckmanton <te...@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu>
wrote: > Sir Jeremy wrote: > > On 10 May, 17:20, Terry Duckmanton <te...@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu> > > wrote: > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> Communist? Not me. I am not trying to force anyone out of their cars or > >> on to buses and trains and I wouldn't dream of telling people they > >> _must_ ride bicycles. What I would like to see, particularly from people > >> in the *media, is an acceptance of the fact that none of us have a > >> _right_ to drive a motor car and that the shape and technology of > >> private transport must change. > > > That isn't a "fact", its your opinion. If I'm a licensed driver and my > > vehicle is legal then I have the right to use it on public roads if I > > so wish. > > Perhaps I didn't make myself clear when I used the word 'right'. What I > was trying to get across was the idea of a fundamental right, rather > than a right which is earned by taking tests and paying a fee for a > licence. Too many people believe that on reaching the magic age a > licence to drive a motor vehicle should be issued automatically > regardless of the mayhem that may be caused by such actions. Is anyone seriously suggesting that they should be allowed to drive a car without being licensed and that the car not be taxed, insured, MOT'd? > Of course, you may have been referring to the bit about changing the > shape and technology of private transport in which case you are right, > this is indeed just my opinion. > > Terry- Hide quoted text - I was, too. |
|
|
|
12-05.-2008, 03:47 PM
|
#40 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy > <pete.aron@virgin.net> said in > <b06db2c3-4a25-4337-82d3-29a136b0e831@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: > >> Semantics. >> As long as you obey the laws of the land you have a right to drive, >> only if you disobey then you may lose that right. Your argument is >> used by the anti car lobby to legitimise your "right" to cycle while >> ignoring the law. > > No, it's not a right, it's a privilege. Or, as the Home Office themselves say: "The right to drive is a privilege, earned by proving competence in safe driving, and withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness." Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then, including the most fundamental right of all. -- Matt B |
|
|
|
12-05.-2008, 03:57 PM
|
#41 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
On Mon, 12 May 2008 07:47:31 +0100, Matt B
<matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> wrote: >Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy >> <pete.aron@virgin.net> said in >> <b06db2c3-4a25-4337-82d3-29a136b0e831@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: >> >>> Semantics. >>> As long as you obey the laws of the land you have a right to drive, >>> only if you disobey then you may lose that right. Your argument is >>> used by the anti car lobby to legitimise your "right" to cycle while >>> ignoring the law. >> >> No, it's not a right, it's a privilege. > >Or, as the Home Office themselves say: "The right to drive is a >privilege, earned by proving competence in safe driving, and >withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness." > >Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the >appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then, >including the most fundamental right of all. So you cannot see the oxymoron the the Home Office statement you quoted? The /privilege/ is not granted unless the applicant has proved a basic level of competence. The /privilege/ can be withdrawn. |
|
|
|
12-05.-2008, 05:23 PM
|
#42 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 07:47:31 +0100, Matt B > <matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> wrote: > >> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: >>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy >>> <pete.aron@virgin.net> said in >>> <b06db2c3-4a25-4337-82d3-29a136b0e831@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: >>> >>>> Semantics. >>>> As long as you obey the laws of the land you have a right to drive, >>>> only if you disobey then you may lose that right. Your argument is >>>> used by the anti car lobby to legitimise your "right" to cycle while >>>> ignoring the law. >>> No, it's not a right, it's a privilege. >> Or, as the Home Office themselves say: "The right to drive is a >> privilege, earned by proving competence in safe driving, and >> withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness." >> >> Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the >> appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then, >> including the most fundamental right of all. > > So you cannot see the oxymoron the the Home Office statement you > quoted? > > The /privilege/ is not granted unless the applicant has proved a basic > level of competence. The /privilege/ can be withdrawn. The point being that once earned it cannot be withdrawn if all the rules are complied with, and without due process being followed. Do you know of many other "rights" which are more strongly protected than that? -- Matt B |
|
|
|
12-05.-2008, 06:51 PM
|
#43 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
"Matt B" <matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:68q768F2tinogU1@mid.individual.net... > Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the > appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then, including > the most fundamental right of all. I had the privilege taken away from me without any rules being broken on my part. So it looks like you're wrong. clive |
|
|
|
12-05.-2008, 07:07 PM
|
#44 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
Clive George wrote:
> "Matt B" <matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> wrote in message > news:68q768F2tinogU1@mid.individual.net... > >> Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the >> appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then, >> including the most fundamental right of all. > > I had the privilege taken away from me without any rules being broken on > my part. Including the rules to do with health conditions? > So it looks like you're wrong. Only if you had the right removed for none of the reasons given in the driving licence regulations, in which case you'll need to elaborate. -- Matt B |
|
|
|
12-05.-2008, 08:03 PM
|
#45 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph
Matt B wrote:
> Or, as the Home Office themselves say: "The right to drive is a > privilege, earned by proving competence in safe driving, and > withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness." > > Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the > appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then, > including the most fundamental right of all. No, it's not a right. You don't have rights in the UK, you have permissions. If you think otherwise, show me the written Bill Of Rights or similar constitutional legal document that says otherwise, not something the Home Office sort of implies in an aside about driving. If you think something the Home Office says like the above is proof of the legal status of a right then you're even dafter than I took you for, and I say that in the perspective that I took you you as being pretty bloody daft before now. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
|
|
Linear Mode
