Ladymuck

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was going to give it 3/10 but thought LadyM > would then tell me off too No, you go ahead Quids - Matthew is a Liverpool supporter;-)

Indeed Silverfox. I am neither religious nor right. However my "concern" (as for the GM debate) would be that such technology would need to be tested for many years to ascertain its safety - by which time it may be too late. This doesn't constitute doom-mongering (in my humble opinion).

We could always share the...ahem...post...don't think I could handle the likes of Theresa May all by myself. I wield the laser cannon though!

c_m_h Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >ASL are good in theory, > but death traps in practice to > inexperienced/ignorant cyclists. You are right of course. The key thing here is for cyclists to undergo proper training so that they are not ignorant. Personally I would NEVER EVER cycle down the inside of large vehicles such as lorries/buses etc. Lorries are a particular hazard and are the primary cause of deaths in cycling accidents in exactly this type of situation. Though ASLs are handy for getting that "head start" once the lights change, and for positioning/indication purposes so that drivers behind are aware of the cyclist's next move.

ha ha ha:))

*flicks karter's ear*

Sean/Mockney, I don't understand why the issuing of (low) marks thing (albeit in partial jest). Quids is entitled to start his thread. He is making valid enquiries (as far as I can see). ROOOOOOOO-NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >...If > West Ham get to the Cup Final anytime whilst I'm > still alive... Wear/hang your England T-shirt/flag with pride. Can't say I'd suggest the same course of action in respect of your West Ham T-shirt though... *flees the country*

Go on Quids - I dare you...stick one out of your window! (Flag - that is!)

Thank you HAL9000 (somehow I knew you'd know). So basically, the only differences are (a) synthetic (as opposed to purely natural DNA) has been used and (b) the assembled DNA strands are greater in length? In which case many of the arguments/concerns for and against this technology are similar to the ones for standard biotechnology? Except now there is the element of the "synthetic" to be considered?

*looks well and truly pathetic* erm...I clicked on the thingy...but I don't get it...a message says "show/hide" and I end up on another page...what am I doing wrong/not getting? Why am I not thinking "useful feature" or "Admin=God"?

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting fact: some sufferers of Parkinson's > Disease turn into inveterate gamblers. Can't > remember the science behind it though. Simply had to look this up. Found this. Apparently it's to do with their medication.

@ HAL9000 OK, I am not a scientist either. How different is this to genetic (bio) engineering? I don't understand. Certainly what immediately strikes me is that we are looking at similar concerns here (e.g. ethical, environmental etc. etc.). So a (short) and preferably jargon free explanation would be really helpful (to me). Thanks in advance.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If this is for the benefit of bike owners, then it > seems excessive to make it compulsory > > If this is for a wider 'public good' reason then > it needs to be clearly articulated to justify > compulsion - presumably with penalties for > non-compliance. Now these sound like excellent proposals for clauses 2 and 3 of the (hypothetical) proposed Bill. Presumably you will be posting a draft for our perusal in due course?;-)

Shout It All Out HB? you iz one hellaver Foxy Foxy dude. Yesseree, you iz. *falls off chair laughing*

Blimey Mick Mac - is she alright? I know you said she's fine now, but is she alright?

How about I buy you a drink Katie? So, Mick Mac buys me one, I buy you one, and then maybe you could buy Quids one and Quids could buy someone else one etc. etc. till it eventually goes full circle and somebody buys Mick Mac one...resulting in a lot of (tipsy) happy bunnies:)). It will be the day after Midsummer's Day - so plenty of daylight till late. And, if it's warm we could even sit outside. Should be fabulous.

We have friends from the Philippines who say that they (the filipinos) are "nuts" over gambling. Apparently it is very very common over there. It is also an extremely poor country.

I would have thought the ED General Issues section would have been the best place to inform readers of your club. Could be wrong though.

kpc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I see the words "National Database", that's > when I reach for my revolver. Oh well you've nothing to get anxious about then - given that you are in all probability already on the Police National DNA Database...;-)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having a look at the Warrington site... this > picture made me laugh. Now this is a crap cycle > lane. > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility > -of-the-month/porteouverte.jpg Oh how funny! When you stated that it is a "crap cycle lane", was this because one presumably cycles into the hut for a poo? That is a loo in there?

skidmarks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Super? > > What do you think? Well, it appears sufficiently wide and it is linked to an Advanced Stop Lane. Good start. But cross the lights and then it stops - abruptly. Then what? Also, it looks to me as though this particular one also forms part of a Bus Lane? Hmmmm, it would have been nicer/safer had we been given our own lane. And what's with the blue? Very pretty - but we are all used to green. It's better than nothing, but "super"? In my opinion - no. Shame. Interesting though.

skidmarks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry that was off topic. No matter - you are in the Lounge...we can do more or less what we like (provided we do not breach the Forum's rules).;-)

Thanks for that Horsebox...I had no idea this blog existed. Agree with your first and last paras. too.

skidmarks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really can?t see the point of cyclists having 3rd > party insurance. If a cyclist has a crash with a > vehicle they usually end up dead with the vehicle > having nothing more than a scratch or a broken > wing mirror or a nasty stain on the tyre. The > damage probably wouldn?t exceed the excess on the > policy. With due respect, there is every point. Many years ago my brakes suddenly failed causing me to crash into the back of a truck. Fortunately there was no damage to the truck, but only because of a large whicker basket attached to the front of my bike which acted as a kind of buffer between the bike/truck. In this situation I would have been liable for any damage to the truck. Also, do bear in mind that insurance is not only about vehicles. There are plenty of accidents involving cyclists/pedestrians and even cyclists/other cyclists. As for deaths, fortunately these are relatively few compared with non-death accidents. Indeed I myself have been knocked off my bike three times now...I'm still here ;-).