|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: DougDoug Date: Nov 24, 2007 02:38
On 23 Nov, 10:52, "gazzafield"
wrote:
> "JNugent" noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Icidnf6cMfLgMdvanZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
>
>>> Depresion wrote:
>
>>> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote:>
>>>>"Motorists who drive gas guzzling cars are to be forced to pay more to
>>>>park outside their Edinburgh homes.
>>>>Edinburgh City Council has approved a new permit scheme which will
>>>>charge drivers according to the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.
>
>>> You would have to be incredibly dumb to think that makes sense, charge
>>> people more to not drive.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.92Kb) |
|
| | 25 Comments |
|
|
Author: Knight Of The RoadKnight Of The Road Date: Nov 24, 2007 02:46
"Doug" riseup.net> wrote >
> If it was intended to cover 24/7 street garaging nobody would have to
> pay extra to leave their cars lying around causing an obstruction and
> a danger to others.
In what way is a parked car dangerous and who, with the possible exception
of other road users, is obstructed by it?
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: JNugentJNugent Date: Nov 24, 2007 02:57
Knight Of The Road wrote:
> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote >
>
> >>If it was intended to cover 24/7 street garaging nobody would have to
>>pay extra to leave their cars lying around causing an obstruction and
>>a danger to others.
> In what way is a parked car dangerous and who, with the possible exception
> of other road users, is obstructed by it?
Hmmm...
I remember that about thirty years ago, the young son (aged about 8 or
9) of a slightly distant relative was knocked down and killed whilst
crossing the road. He tried to cross a main road (a bus route) from
between two parked cars, meaning that he couldn't see the traffic and
the drivers couldn't see him, until it was too late. I don't want to
enter into a debate about whose fault it might have been, but had the
parked cars not been there, there's every chance that that boy would
now be in the prime of life.
|
| Show full article (1.07Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Knight Of The RoadKnight Of The Road Date: Nov 24, 2007 03:16
"JNugent" noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote
but had the> parked cars not been there, there's every chance that that boy would now
> be in the prime of life.
Or the moving car. Or the road. And if your auntie had a dick, she'd be your
uncle.
Tragic though it is, if a person does not observe and respect potential risk
in any situation then they endanger themselves.
The parked vehicles you describe in your post do not constitute a "danger",
any more than a piece of electrical flex could be described as dangerous,
simply because it would be theoretically possible to cut away the insulated
sheathing and electrocute oneself by touching the wire.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JNugentJNugent Date: Nov 24, 2007 03:20
Knight Of The Road wrote:
> "JNugent" noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote>>but had the
>>parked cars not been there, there's every chance that that boy would now
>>be in the prime of life.
> Or the moving car. Or the road. And if your auntie had a dick, she'd be your
> uncle.
> Tragic though it is, if a person does not observe and respect potential risk
> in any situation then they endanger themselves.
You could apply that anywhere. You could apply it to lift shafts - no
need for interlocking lift doors. In fact, there's no real need for
lift-doors at all, because if a person does not observe and respect
potential risk in any situation then they endanger themselves.
Similarly, no need for railings on roads and tracks crossing railways
and/or motorways, because if a person does not observe and respect
potential risk in any situation then they endanger themselves.
Can you think why we don't apply that rule more generally and
particularly not in those circumstances? And can you think why parking
is prohibited on zebra crossings?
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: gazzafieldgazzafield Date: Nov 24, 2007 04:22
"JNugent" noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:0eednS0UPsIGntXanZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@pipex.net...> Knight Of The Road wrote:
>> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote >
>>
>>>>>If it was intended to cover 24/7 street garaging nobody would have to
>>>pay extra to leave their cars lying around causing an obstruction and
>>>a danger to others.
>
>> In what way is a parked car dangerous and who, with the possible
>> exception of other road users, is obstructed by it?
> Consider: we have a strictly-enforced rule that vehicles must not wait
> within the zig-zag lines either side of a zebra crossing (to the extent
> that there are very many of those left).
|
| Show full article (1.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JNugentJNugent Date: Nov 24, 2007 04:29
gazzafield wrote:
> "JNugent" noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:>> Knight Of The Road wrote:
>>> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote >>>>> If it was intended to cover 24/7 street garaging nobody would have to
>>>> pay extra to leave their cars lying around causing an obstruction and
>>>> a danger to others.
>>> In what way is a parked car dangerous and who, with the possible
>>> exception of other road users, is obstructed by it?
>
>> Consider: we have a strictly-enforced rule that vehicles must not wait
>> within the zig-zag lines either side of a zebra crossing (to the
>> extent that there are very many of those left).
> Consider: It is technically illegal to park your car anywhere as you
> are "obstructing the Queen's highway" or some other archaic tosh. We
> have zig zags at zebra crossings to stop the selfish bastards from
> parking as close as possible to their house, shops or whatever. Some
> still do it anyway as there are usually no police to stop them.
|
| Show full article (1.63Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BrimstoneBrimstone Date: Nov 24, 2007 04:31
JNugent wrote:
> gazzafield wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:>>> Knight Of The Road wrote:
>>>> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote >>
>>>>> If it was intended to cover 24/7 street garaging nobody would
>>>>> have to pay extra to leave their cars lying around causing an
>>>>> obstruction and a danger to others.
>
>>>> In what way is a parked car dangerous and who, with the possible
>>>> exception of other road users, is obstructed by it?
>
>>
>
>>> Consider: we have a strictly-enforced rule that vehicles must not
>>> wait within the zig-zag lines either side of a zebra crossing (to
>>> the extent that there are very many of those left).
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.72Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ConorConor Date: Nov 24, 2007 04:35
> Its not road tax it is vehicle excise duty, which is not hypothecated
> anyway and is necessary in order to drive a vehicle on a public road.
> If it was intended to cover 24/7 street garaging nobody would have to
> pay extra to leave their cars lying around causing an obstruction and
> a danger to others.
>
Yet the RFL allows you to leave your car parked on the road 24/7/365.
--
Conor
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Nov 24, 2007 05:46
JNugent noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> You could apply that anywhere. You could apply it to lift shafts - no
> need for interlocking lift doors. In fact, there's no real need for
> lift-doors at all, because if a person does not observe and respect
> potential risk in any situation then they endanger themselves.
I take it you have never seen a paternoster then?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
