Loz

"haha, they should be in the tour de france if that were the case" Only if he could keep that speed up for week or two. Are you saying your average cyclist never, ever gets to 30mph?

Can anyone explain this? It doesn't actually seem to make any sense.

You do realise that the election of the host city for the Olympics was done via a form of AV? And that Cameron (and Milliband, for that matter) were both elected by forms of AV? In fact, Cameron himself cam second after the first round of MPs voting. Had they used FPTP then David Davis would be leader of the Tories. The No camp talks a lot of rubbish.

I still think you are looking for reasons to see this case in a better light. "Drew attention to itself (horn, bell or shout)" is a bit different to shouting, "move because I'm not stopping", which as far as I can see is not undisputed in this case. And where did you get the 17mph from? How do you know he wasn't going 30mph? Or faster?

"Don't blame you 6yr old kids....please." Why? A good lesson in looking after your stuff.

Applespider, If it was a car driver that saw a pedestrian stepping onto the road, yelled 'move because I'm not stopping" before mowing them down, would you still view the incident in such a 'different' light if the motorist stopped and assisted after the crash? Personally, I'm not sure a separate offence is needed - just bring cyclists under the same laws that cover cars, motorbikes, whatever. They are all 'vehicles' and should be treated the same.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > See Loz's ice cream example above where, after > three votes, more people ended up with an ice > cream they didn't want (70%) than if they hadn't > bothered to vote in the first place (60%). Again, you really don't understand voting systems, do you? Your 100m example actually makes more sense than this bizarre view on preferences. But again, as before, I think you are purposefully feigning daftness. No one, but no one, can take this long to understand a relatively simple concept.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Put it like this: the men's 100 metres final in > the Olympics will be won by the person who runs > the fastest and breaks the tape first. If AV > reasoning was applied to this this is unfair > because the other seven racers lost. the reason > the winner won was because he was the fastest. But > he may of had longer legs, more stamina, been > fitter, trained harder, a bigger lunch box etc. > none of this matters. apply AV and give it to the > fat asthmatic kid with eczema You really don't understand voting systems, do you?

PR is only really useful where you are electing more than one candidate (e.g. in Australia it is used for electing Senators to the upper house, where each state returns 10 senators). It allots a representative based on the total number of votes. In theory, a party that gets, say, 15% of the vote should get 15% of the elected candidates. Note that PR is not on offer in the upcoming referendum. AV is useful when electing one candidate, like for the current Westminster system of electing an MP. If, say, you have 5 candidates then instead of just placing an X next to your preferred candidate (as you currently do), you number the candidates in order of preference. Candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated and there votes redistributed based on the voters preferences until two candidates remain - one of which will have >50% of the vote. As I said, PR plays no part in this referendum - you are being asked to decide whether to retain the current First Past the Post method or switch to the Alternative Vote method.

I usually go over Blackfriars to Kings Cross, across Euston Road, up Hampstead Road through Camden, Chalk Farm and turn at Swiss Cottage to get over to Finchley Road and on to Brent Cross.

Looks like an MP has taken the issue up. Sadly, only a 10 Minute Bill, so not a huge chance of becoming law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/apr/01/cyclists-law

Try this one... http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/article_1105.shtml

I know three women that use that train regularly (sometimes non at all that sober) late at night and they have been fine. Really, why would you think otherwise?

This product naming is very wrong. So very, very wrong. Wronger that the wrongest thing you can think of. http://www.planetmobility.com/store/wheelchairs/manual/colours/spazz/ PS. That picture doesn't work, David. I just get a page full of cybercrud.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there actually anything wrong with the old > fashioned timetable? Their connection with reality being almost non-existent would be the main issue.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm more offended by the phrase "political > correctness gone mad". I assume because it is a tautology? Political correctness was mad to begin with.

I didn't think lenders looked twice at anyone wanting more than an 80% loan-to-value at the moment.

I was right... and I was wrong. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/11560.aspx

Set the Daily Mail onto them.

They're all listed at the end if you press the button.

And ED Station at last. Hooray! I thought Countdown was being phased out and internet/smart phone based stuff was on its way?

The sports club that I am a member of holds an outdoor tournament every year. We've previously held it on Clapham Common, but they want a few hundred quid for the use of the Aussie Rules pitch. Unfortunately, we look like losing our sponsor this year and so we looking to make some cost savings. Does anyone know of a grassed area that we could get cheap or even free that would be big enough to set up six netball-sized courts on? It would be in the evening after work, so close to transport links to central London would be very useful.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the fact that your entrepreneur got to > ?150k a year should be seen as success enough - > unless you are, to quote Peter Mandleson, > immensely relaxed about people getting extremely > rich. If I was lucky enough to be earning over > that figure I should think it fair an equitable > that I should pay large amounts to the Treasury. > I'm not going to be going short any time soon. If I got the point where I was 'allowed' to keep 31p in every extra pound I earned I would not be happy. If people then told me I should be paying more I would be saying, 'sod this for a game of soldiers' pretty damn quickly. I think any tax rate over 50% is unfair and unmotivating. (And I am on nowhere near ?150k either).

Whilst not exactly rocket science, a complete newbie putting that sort of website together is a big ask. I'd get some help if I was you.

louloulabelle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cant believe the tone of some people! Disabled > spaces are important and if Parent spaces are > provided why should parents not be able to use > them!!! > > I dont have to justify why i have kids, what car i > drive and how much my weekly spend is but people > using areas that are not designated for them > should have to justify it! Did you actually read the thread before posting?