Department of Transport Press Release

B

beamendsltd

Guest

• May 27, 2006

• #21

In message <[email protected]>
Corp-Rat <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 25 May 2006 13:59:47 +0100, beamendsltd wrote:
>
> > In message <[email protected]>
> > "Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> DEPT OF TRANSPORT INITIATIVE HAS BEEN RE-LAUNCHED,
> >> MAY 2006.
> >>
> >
> > I thought they already used 5 interlinked rings?
> >
> > Richard
>
> What? the olympic committee?

That's 7 isn't it? I'm affraid the US Corporate Games isn't
and area of much interest...

>
> Edd

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay

 

T

Tim Hobbs

Guest

• May 27, 2006

• #22

On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:44:34 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>
> Corp-Rat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 13:59:47 +0100, beamendsltd wrote:
>>
>> > In message <[email protected]>
>> > "Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> DEPT OF TRANSPORT INITIATIVE HAS BEEN RE-LAUNCHED,
>> >> MAY 2006.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I thought they already used 5 interlinked rings?
>> >
>> > Richard
>>
>> What? the olympic committee?
>
>That's 7 isn't it? I'm affraid the US Corporate Games isn't
>and area of much interest...
>
>>
>> Edd
>
>Richard

Nah, 5.

Audi have 4, which is what I guess you were getting at originally.

--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70
'06 Nissan Navara aka "The Truck"

 

M

Matthew Maddock

Guest

• May 27, 2006

• #23

Steve wrote:
> "Tom Woods" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The council lawnmowers who cut the grass round my house have got flags
>> on the lawnmowers too!
>>
>
> Ah, but only until such time as some council kill-joy official finds out and
> bans them. Might cause offence to some newly arrived illegal immigrant you
> know......

You joke, but a local council around here has banned them from Taxis for
that reason, and further said that they think people might get confused
if Taxis are 'flying' the flags, someone might think that all cars with
those flags are Taxis! Go figure!

Matt

 

R

Richard Brookman

Guest

• May 27, 2006

• #24

Matthew Maddock wrote:

|| You joke, but a local council around here has banned them from Taxis
|| for that reason, and further said that they think people might get
|| confused if Taxis are 'flying' the flags, someone might think that
|| all cars with those flags are Taxis! Go figure!
||
|| Matt

Apparently, we all have to arrange things around the possible actions of the
most stupid in society. Most Health and Safety rules are based on this
idea. If a very stupid person with an IQ of less than their shoe size could
misunderstand it, it must be altered so that they could. The very reverse
of the Darwin principle. I despair.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

 

M

Mother

Guest

• May 27, 2006

• #25

On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:55:01 +0100, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Apparently, we all have to arrange things around the possible actions of the
>most stupid in society. Most Health and Safety rules are based on this
>idea. If a very stupid person with an IQ of less than their shoe size could
>misunderstand it, it must be altered so that they could. The very reverse
>of the Darwin principle. I despair.

There's a very valid argument that all of these flags are illegal as
they are not permanently fixed and could fall off and cause an
accident. (NOT, I hasten to add, my arguement, just something that I
overheard being discussed yesterday).


--
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one
of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being
increasingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
In memory of Brian {Hamilton Kelly} who logged off 15th September 2005

 

B

beamendsltd

Guest

• May 27, 2006

• #26

In message <[email protected]>
Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:55:01 +0100, "Richard Brookman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Apparently, we all have to arrange things around the possible actions of the
> >most stupid in society. Most Health and Safety rules are based on this
> >idea. If a very stupid person with an IQ of less than their shoe size could
> >misunderstand it, it must be altered so that they could. The very reverse
> >of the Darwin principle. I despair.
>
> There's a very valid argument that all of these flags are illegal as
> they are not permanently fixed and could fall off and cause an
> accident. (NOT, I hasten to add, my arguement, just something that I
> overheard being discussed yesterday).
>
>

That came up last time - some jobsworth from a local council
trying to justify his existance in a non-job. Lets face it,
spare wheels, non-spare wheels, aerials, high-mounted stop
lights, fog lights, daft body trim, wiper arms and blades,
signs (e.g. taxis), etc etc *could* all fall off, and in the
very small chance of that happening there is another very
small change they may hit someone, and then there's a small
chance that acutally hurt someone......... I'd hazard a
guess that they are *far* more likely to be hurt by the
car carring the accessory than the accessory. But then
that's just common sense, so doesn't count these days.

Richard (not looking forward to our future risk-free sterile
society).

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay

 

M

Matthew Maddock

Guest

• May 27, 2006

• #27

> That came up last time - some jobsworth from a local council
> trying to justify his existance in a non-job. Lets face it,
> spare wheels, non-spare wheels, aerials, high-mounted stop
> lights, fog lights, daft body trim, wiper arms and blades,
> signs (e.g. taxis), etc etc *could* all fall off, and in the
> very small chance of that happening there is another very
> small change they may hit someone, and then there's a small
> chance that acutally hurt someone......... I'd hazard a
> guess that they are *far* more likely to be hurt by the
> car carring the accessory than the accessory. But then
> that's just common sense, so doesn't count these days.

Oooh - I don't know Richard. I had a scary incident on the
way to B&Q at lunch-time today when I came across a stray
knob-head flag in the middle of the road. I had to turn the
steering wheel slightly to the right to avoid it - nearly
caused a huge pile-up; I was in a blind panic. I may call
the council on Tuesday to complain that they hadn't been to
clear it up immediately, and whilst I'm at it I will ask
them why they haven't issued a leaflet to every household
in the area advising of the severe dangers of attaching
such items to your vehicle.

Matt

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• May 28, 2006

• #28

On or around Sat, 27 May 2006 11:55:01 +0100, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Matthew Maddock wrote:
>
>|| You joke, but a local council around here has banned them from Taxis
>|| for that reason, and further said that they think people might get
>|| confused if Taxis are 'flying' the flags, someone might think that
>|| all cars with those flags are Taxis! Go figure!
>||
>|| Matt
>
>Apparently, we all have to arrange things around the possible actions of the
>most stupid in society.

Bloody good example of them seen today - 2 blokes, no safety gear, large
trail bike, 2-up at high speed around a residential area.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero" (sieze today, and put
as little trust as you can in tomorrow) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Odes, I.xi.8

 

R

Richard Brookman

Guest

• May 28, 2006

• #29

Austin Shackles wrote:

||| Apparently, we all have to arrange things around the possible
||| actions of the most stupid in society.
||
|| Bloody good example of them seen today - 2 blokes, no safety gear,
|| large trail bike, 2-up at high speed around a residential area.

So, to follow Darwin, two organ donors for the NHS before too long. Seems
OK to me.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

 

L

Landnurse

Guest

• May 29, 2006

• #30

Richard Brookman wrote:
> Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> ||| Apparently, we all have to arrange things around the possible
> ||| actions of the most stupid in society.
> ||
> || Bloody good example of them seen today - 2 blokes, no safety gear,
> || large trail bike, 2-up at high speed around a residential area.
>
> So, to follow Darwin, two organ donors for the NHS before too long. Seems
> OK to me.
>
Thought the attatched website would continue this theme


www.darwinawards.com

Doesn't do much to restore faith in humanity but it's a good laugh at
people and there happenings