Cycling wrong way up one way streets to be made legal

Peter Pie Eater

Sir Jeremy wrote:

> What does FSVO mean?

As someone else has already pointed out, it means "For Some Value(s) Of

I find Acronym Finder to be of great use against people that present you
with obscure acronyms:

http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=FSVO

Tom Anderson

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Dave Larrington wrote:

> In news:y3x1k.145665$cZ3.54248@newsfe10.ams2,
> Dervin <Dervin@Dervin.Dervin> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:36:09 -0700, Sir Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 Jun, 13:57, Dervin <Der...@Dervin.Dervin> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:40:19 +0100, Nick wrote:
>>>>> That seems sensible. They had a guy on the radio discussing it. He
>>>>> said that cyclists were already doing it. He also said that when
>>>>> you have a law that is widely disobeyed without any obvious
>>>>> negative consequences it is sensible to consider if the law is
>>>>> really needed.
>>>>
>>>> So why is pot still illegal?
>>>
>>> and breaking the speed limit?
>>
>> There's a reason for speed limits. To reduce fuel emissions.
>
> Where can I get one of these vehicles that emits fuel?

I've got a cycling friend who's a diabetic, if that helps.

tom

--
I had no idea it was going to end in such tragedy

Tim Hall

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:26:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<pete.aron@virgin.net> wrote:

>On 4 Jun, 14:49, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 06:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy

<snip>

>> >Because he's a folk hero
>>
>> FSVO hero, and indeed folk.
>
>
>What does FSVO mean?

JFGI.

(For Some Values Of, if you CBA.)
--

Tim

I understand very little of what's being discussed
but for some reason it's fascinating.

(Jon Thompson, urs)

David Hansen

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:31:44 +0100 someone who may be Peter Pie
Eater <M8R-0ku37n@mailinator.com> wrote this:-

>I'm always stepping out in front of cyclists on those damn contraflow
>one way roads. It just doesn't come naturally to me to look in the
>"wrong direction" when crossing a one way street.

Except that it isn't a one-way street. Rather it is one-way for
certain types of vehicle and two-way for others street.

This isn't just something to beware of with bikes. One may also find
trams, buses and taxis being driven both ways along some street.
People tend to be rather more careful about stepping out into these
streets without looking, which is a testament to the low level of
danger which bikes and their riders pose to others.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Sir Jeremy

On 4 Jun, 16:50, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:48:23 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
> you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote this:-
>
> >>> > when you have a
> >>> > law that is widely disobeyed without any obvious negative consequences
> >>> > it is sensible to consider if the law is really needed.
> >>> So why is pot still illegal?
>
> >>and breaking the speed limit?
>
> >You missed the bit about "obvious negative consequences".
>
> Until relatively recently if councils measured the speed motorists
> were driving down roads and a weighted average was higher than the
> speed limit they raised the speed limit. I still hear the same
> concept from time to time.
>
> --
> * David Hansen, Edinburgh
> *I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> *http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

That's the best way to determine speed limits.

Alan Braggins

In article <WfOdndwCl7j-K9vVnZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Clive George wrote:
>"Peter Pie Eater" <M8R-0ku37n@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>news:VJKdnY_mwN_zKNvVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>> The argument being presented seems to be that cycling the wrong way down
>> one-way streets should be legalised because some bike users do it already
>> and it can't be policed. That seems to me to be a bad argument.
>
>In those terms, maybe. But add the critical extra bit "and it seems to work
>fine - no carnage has resulted", and it becomes a rather better one.

And there are obvious benefits to cyclists so long as it isn't dangerous.

Danny Colyer

On 04/06/2008 15:47, Dave Larrington wondered:
> Where can I get one of these vehicles that emits fuel?

Acquire a diesel-powered motor vehicle, fill the tank to the brim, then
drive at speed over bumps and around roundabouts. That should do the trick.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Sir Jeremy

On 4 Jun, 16:41, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:26:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <pete.a...@virgin.net> said in
> <bc743403-6822-46e3-9cb6-5c787f459...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >What does FSVO mean?
>
> For Some Values Of. *Do KUATB.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. *Contents liable to settle after posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

OK Thanks

Sir Jeremy

On 4 Jun, 16:55, Peter Pie Eater <M8R-0ku...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Sir Jeremy wrote:
> > What does FSVO mean?
>
> As someone else has already pointed out, it means "For Some Value(s) Of
>
> I find Acronym Finder to be of great use against people that present you
> with obscure acronyms:
>
> http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=FSVO

Thanks for that, AF is defeated by GC's KUATB though

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:12:15 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<pete.aron@virgin.net> said in
<abdadd19-8850-41e6-9f68-8c9a73f7c43f@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:

>AF is defeated by GC's KUATB though

Entirely appropriate. It means: Keep Up At The Back.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Ben C

On 2008-06-04, Matt B <matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
>> <pete.aron@virgin.net> said in
>> <a89e85f0-455d-4d3d-9a24-b661c9aa4986@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>>> You missed the bit about "obvious negative consequences".
>>
>>> Couldn't think of any. Annoying the 'mentalists counts as a positive
>>> consequence.
>>
>> If you can't think of any obvious negative consequences of speeding,
>> it's time you turned in your driving license.
>
> Can you think of any - that is, any that /are/ consequences of
> /speeding/ per se?

Getting to work early resulting in doing too many hours leading to
stress.

> To qualify you'll need to demonstrate that they apply to travelling at
> 31 mph in a 30 mph limit, and that they would cease to be "negative"
> if the speed limit was increased to 31 mph.

That is a somewhat unreasonably strict definition of "per se"!

Ben C

On 2008-06-04, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:48:23 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
> you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote this:-
>
>>>> > when you have a
>>>> > law that is widely disobeyed without any obvious negative consequences
>>>> > it is sensible to consider if the law is really needed.
>>>> So why is pot still illegal?
>>
>>>and breaking the speed limit?
>>
>>You missed the bit about "obvious negative consequences".
>
> Until relatively recently if councils measured the speed motorists
> were driving down roads and a weighted average was higher than the
> speed limit they raised the speed limit. I still hear the same
> concept from time to time.

Interesting. Whenever I see those cables on the road I slow down because
I assume they're gathering evidence to present to someone to justify
putting cameras or, worse, bumps in. But perhaps I should step on it to
boost the average.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:03:23 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> said
in <slrng4e0oq.r07.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>:

>> To qualify you'll need to demonstrate that they apply to travelling at
>> 31 mph in a 30 mph limit, and that they would cease to be "negative"
>> if the speed limit was increased to 31 mph.
>
>That is a somewhat unreasonably strict definition of "per se"!

It's also a fallacious argument, the fallacy of the heap. I suspect
Troll B has been told this before.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Ekul Namsob

Peter Pie Eater <M8R-0ku37n@mailinator.com> wrote:

> POHB wrote:
> > or at least to be trialled on a few roads in part of London.
>
> My initial thoughts are as follows:
>
> I'm always stepping out in front of cyclists on those damn contraflow
> one way roads. It just doesn't come naturally to me to look in the
> "wrong direction" when crossing a one way street.

Are you aware that it remains legal for a motorist to reverse, for
example into a parking space, on one way streets?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>