LadyDeliah

Car drivers beating their chest and shouting at anyone who might slow their journey or get in their way again. Selfish, owners of lethal lumps of fast moving metal who enrich the corrupt governments coffers vs flesh and bone 'irritants'. No prizes for guessing who comes out on top in clash of interests here. How dare you try to cross the road and get in their way. Their ease of travel is more important than your life. The drivers pay lots of extra tax so feel they are entitled to put all of our lives in danger and that everyone should accommodate their need to get from A to B as fast as possible with no obstruction.

...

These posts demonstrate the issue of who our public spaces should be given priority. For the past 50 years, cars have been given more and more priority over pretty much all other users. This has resulted in communities being criss crossed by dangerous, expanding roads making normal daily activities far more difficult for everyone. In my opinion the dominance of the car should be challenged and reversed so tha other users of public spaces can go about their lives without having to worry about being killed by dangerous and inconsiderate drivers. Some architects and town planners are starting to look at reducing the dominance of the car, but their efforts don't appear to have made much of a dent in the 'I deserve to do as I like' car driver or the authorities who continue to pander to them.

Thanks :-)

Price is the primary consideration at the moment as our cash flow is tight because we are taking a 10 year lease on a new place after having been in a semi-serviced office so need to pay quite a lot out to get it ready. I'd love more info and pointers as this is the first time I've had to consider these things.

Anyone?

What time?

healey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The girl in that last mural is badly drawn, > unfortunately. Her arm is too long and badly > posed. The artist needs to get his anatomy up to > scratch... What an arsehole!

We are in the process of organising an office move and will need to install a network telephone system. Nothing fancy, just a reception phone and eight desk phones with call transfer. Prices and specs vary widely and I have no idea what system to go for, so thought I?d put it out there for anyone in ED who may have some idea which suppliers/systems etc might be worth checking out.

You may want to move to monthly wages rather than weekly. Makes it much easier.

Pinochet was a loyal friend.

Some potato, but when I was going for the big weight loss I excluded it. For maintenance I think it would be ok so long as it wasn't a big portion used as a filler, but just an additional vegetable. Yes the low carb diet is very similar to the low GI and works for the same reasons, i.e. the insulin response of the body to refined carbs is what piles on the weight and causes the low energy levels. If I do have a craving for carbs I try to stick to low GI, except for fruit really, but nothing at all refined.

I want to add CF of Fenton Walsh for her breathtaking arrogance in the bike lock thread in the General section.

There is a lot of evidence that refined carbohydrates, especially sugar and flour are the main cause of our obesity epidemic so reducing most carbs helps to smooth out blood sugar, reduce water retention, increase energy levels and shed loads of weight. I lost 20 kilos in about 3 months cutting out all carbs except fruit and veg. My energy levels went back to how I was in my 20's and I no longer got lethargic after eating a meal. It was hard to keep it up as I have no imagination when it comes to food and as my old habits crept back in, so did the weight and general lowering of energy levels. I've decided to get back on track and go back to a strict low carb (except fruit and veg) diet again and see if I can get my weight back down.

Loz, you want to add car taxes into the equation, ok, lets also add all the pollution costs to the NHS and people's lives into the equation and the cost of injury and death. Also that comment had nothing to do with registration, it was in response to ted's comment on enforcement ofthe Highway Code. I do not advocate compulsory registration or insurance for cyclists at all.

There are other road users that don't need to be registered. Granted not many; Horses, roller bladers & the occasional skateboarder spring to mind. Maybe we should look at why cars and other motorised vehicles are expected to be registered and insured for a more logical approach. The history of registration of cars relates to their inherent dangerousness and had nothing to do with them being users of the road: By the turn of the century, interest in the motor car was increasing, but there was widespread dissatisfaction with the poor state of the roads. Indeed, the report on the Emancipation Run had stated that ?the roads were filthy, and the cars progressed through a deep sea of mud, over surfaces of the most sodden and heavy going character?. Soon the number of vehicles in use had reached 5,000, creating ever more hazards for other road users. And it was difficult to identify the offenders of the few regulations that existed. Consequently, The Motor Car Act 1903 introduced measures to help identify vehicles and their drivers. All motor vehicles were to be registered, and to display registration marks in a prominent position. Extract from the DVLA website: http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7t9v6ntR6yYAR.pXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1MWoxZXM1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1NNRTA0MV8xMTY-/SIG=147e3oinh/EXP=1367104239/**http%3a//www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_180212.pdf Cyclists pose no such danger and there is consequently no need to introduce the same regulation as is necessary in relation to motorised vehicles, which are huge pieces of metal, lethally propelled at great speed and causing a large number of fatalities a year. Cycling poses much the same risk to others as a number of other common activities, none of which require the participants to register on some database and carry prominently displayed identifying numbers. Equating cycling with driving, just because they share the road, is nonsensical for all of the many and detailed reasons above written by me and other posters. But you have failed to engage with the arguments put forward, instead repeating your prejudiced and illogical viewpoint as if repetition gives it more weight. If you can't see why compulsory registration and insurance is a bad idea by now, then there seems to be little point in attempting to explain any further.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure it comes a surprise to many but the > Highway Code applies to Cyclists. So yes most > rules applying to cars also apply to Cycles. And no-one has said otherwise. In my expereience the worst offenders are cars, not cyclists and given the massive danger to others posed by car drivers texting, talking on their phones, applying lipstick etc, I am surprised people want to use so much of or finite resources cracking down on cyclists rather than motorists. Maybe we should have a proportionate policing response. Equal to the percentage of motorised transport compared to cyclists, then add to that the likely seriousness of any damage caused by flouting the Highway code by the two groups and finally deduct the savings to the NHS by cyclists being healthier and allocate the 'crackdown' resources accordingly. I'd happily pay more tax for that as my commute to work (on my bike) would be much safer.

What I'm trying to understand is why they want to single out cyclists. We've all given examples of other classes of person who cause as much or more damage than cyclists when engaging in other activities, but the anti-bike lobby have no burning desire to impose compulsory registration or insurance on them. So if the criteria isn't about insuring against various levels of damage that may ensue from an activity, what is the logic behind the idea to force cyclists to register and take out insurance? Just beacuse you have in illogical prejudice against cyclists perhaps?

And what about multiple bikes or shared bikes. You still haven't said where you propose to put the registration plate or how big it should be to be of any use in policing your new regime. So you don't think pedestrians, roller bladers, skateboarders and drinkers should have to take out compulsory insurance to guard against any damage they cause others? If not, why not?

So they cycle on the pavements then or do you propose banning cycling for under 16s? Same rules as cars? Big massive number plates, annual MOTs, vehicle excise duty (at ?0 as no emmissions) etc. Not sure anyone would bother cycling and the negative effect on public health and NHS spending would far outweigh any possible benefit (although I fail to see a benefit) of any such changes.

And Loz, I'm still waiting for your detailed breakdown on how all this extra registration and insurance would work, especially when it comes to kids.

You ready to tap out on your crap insurance-for-cyclists argument yet Loz? If so, I'm ready to start on the issue of general road saftey and enforcement of the Highway Code. I think you may find that cars would still lose over bikes on that one too.

Loz, you're trying to deflect the argument. Your argument and my replies were about whether cyclists should be insured, and now you want to widen the debate. Heart disease is not caused by someone else so therefore no need to insure against someone giving you heart disease. You are comparing non-comparable issues. Edited cos my spelling's gone to crap!

My niece was killed by a car. The driver didn't stop and was never prosecuted. My sister in law has never been the same again since the death of her daughter and my brother nearly had a nervous breakdown. Repeat this for the thousands of people killed by cars every year and then add the ones injured by cars, plus the damage to property caused by car drivers and I think you'll find that bikes are pretty lame in the destruction-of-people's-lives stakes.

So registration AND insurance? And we come back to the problem of where the registration number is going to be put, how big it will need to be to be monitored, how much this will all cost to be administered etc. If all the hassle and cost involved was outweighed by the public interest in ensuring victims of damage by cyclists were adequately compensated, then it would have already been introduced. If we use the same logic, maybe people who consume alcohol should also have to take out compulsory insurance, to compensate the victims of drunken attacks, which are far more numerous than people/property damaged by cyclists. Lets have compulsory insurance for everyone, for every activity we can think of, on the off-chance they may damage someone/someone's property.