1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

£50m lottery fraud?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Straightarm, Dec 14, 2007.

  1. Straightarm

    Straightarm Well-Known Member

  2. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    What else does one expect from these people who don't pay road tax, insurance or congestion charge, ride illegally without lights and/or on the pavement, won't carry or use mandatory safety equipment (bell), won't identify their unlicensed vehicles and definitely will not respect road markings, traffic lights etc.? ;)
     
  3. Bawbee

    Bawbee Well-Known Member

    I don't have a bike, therefore no bell; I don't pay congestion charges (yet). I do pay road tax, switch my lights on when it's dark, I always stop on amber (if safe to do so) and I do obey traffic markings.

    I voted for Sustrans because of the local projects planned - let's just hope that the funds are not transferred to London 2012.
     
  4. AlanW

    AlanW Well-Known Member

    Well as I said at the start I thought it was an odd way of deciding how to spend £50 million . . . but did it say anywhere in the rules that you couldn't vote more than once? :D

    TBH I think the best project 'won', seeing as it will benefit more people over a larger part of the country - as good a reason as any :cool:
     
  5. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    That's all of them, is it...? :(
     
  6. crymble

    crymble Well-Known Member

    I'm a cyclist and didn't vote for sustrans. Why should I? There are already plenty of roads that can be used, and I'm sure there are other more worthy things that can be done with £50m (For example, I need a new kitchen put in! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

    K
     
  7. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    That's precisely the point - all of the projects (and maybe others as well) would have been funded if the money pit otherwise known as London 2012 didn't exist.

    That's even more annoying than turning the funding allocation exercise into a cheap popularity contest was.
     
  8. Cheshire_Tony

    Cheshire_Tony Well-Known Member

    It's so much easier for the funding committees to allow choosing by vote rather than actually have to make hard decisions and to who gets what, or doesn't.
     
  9. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    So the cyclists found a gap in the traffic and got where they wanted to go 1st? Is what cyclists do ;)

    Also, bells on bikes in use are not mandatory....you have to sell a bell with a new bike but the owner doesn't have to use it (same deal as reflectors). I don't have a bell on my bikes as they rattle if you go over bumps and are another pointless flimsy thing tacked on that can break and cause injury in a crash. I prefer getting reflectors and bell in a bag with the bike rather than have to remove them before the bike is quieter and safer to use.

    I stop at most red lights but the police usually do nothing if you ride through. Once I was reminded red lights were for cyclists too but the cop never went as far as stopping us or getting out the car...just opened the window as he passed (the car right behind me was a cop car..d'oh!). Red lights don't mean stop...they just mean it's not your right of way /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif (sorry, I forgot we're no longer responsible evaluting risks for ourselves these days...only allowed to follow instruction )
     
  10. TH-Photos

    TH-Photos Well-Known Member

    Must remember to put that on the form if I ever get caught by a camera at the lights.

    Why don't we start another thread about the '50Bn Lottery fraud' that the olymipics will be.
     
  11. Bawbee

    Bawbee Well-Known Member

    One of the rules I admired in parts of USA (Louisiana anyway) is that you can turn right on a red light if the way is clear to do so, i.e. no traffic coming from the left and the road is clear to the right.
     
  12. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Same deal in Ohio and IIRC pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross had priority over someone going through a red light too.....almost common sense :eek: Maximum safe progress and all that :cool: (rules introduced as a result of a fuel crisis I believe)
     
  13. Cheshire_Tony

    Cheshire_Tony Well-Known Member

    The Highway Code doesn't use the concept of Right of Way and I don't recall it ever doing so, it chooses more to refer to one road user having priority over another. A subtle difference.

    And of course it should not be assumed that the lesser priority road user will give priority to the higher priority one.
     
  14. Dorsetpete

    Dorsetpete Member

    Sour graeps to all you doubters...

    So the odd enthusiast may have voted on line, on their landline and with their mobile but do you really think the other cotestants enthusiastic supporters were and different!
    Of course not! Grow up!

    Anyway I always thought The Eden Project is a commercial concern with its owners trousering the profits???
     
  15. alanS

    alanS Well-Known Member

    I disagree with the award going to the "cause" it has. I think it's wrong that £50M should be given on the result of a phone / on line vote as we all know now how unrealisable and open to abuse these things are. I also disagree with the money being awarded on the basis of such a small vote.

    The wrong decision all round I think.
     
  16. davidh

    davidh Well-Known Member

    Our illustrious politicians are elected on smaller votes than this (Gordon Brown on a tenth of this vote, for example), and yet control a far greater amount of money.

    Also, who cares how the money is distributed? If you didn't buy a lottery ticket you've got no rights to complain, and if you did, then you'll have known that x% is given away in this manner anyhow, and some choice is better than none.
     
  17. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Well, for a start, infrastructure projects should be funded by the Government. Secondly the National Lottery is a selective tax levied on the stupid. Both ways, there's something to be concerned about.
     
  18. Mr_Geoff

    Mr_Geoff Well-Known Member

    Sorry, you are completely wrong.

    According to Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

    36 Drivers to comply with traffic signs
    (1) Where a traffic sign, being a sign—
    (a) of the prescribed size, colour and type, or
    (b) of another character authorised by the Secretary of State under the provisions in that behalf of the [1984 c. 27.] Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,
    has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.

    That offence will earn you 3 penalty points on your licence, and a £60 fine if you qualify for the fixed penalty notice.
    It also applies to cyclists.
    There is no reference to anything about "rights of way".
    Failing to stop due to the road conditions being slippery and the car behind being too close do not appear to carry any weight either.
     
  19. ermintrude

    ermintrude Hinkypuff

    Yeah I definitely never remember being told I was allowed to go through a red. You ALWAYS have to stop, no matter what. Same with Guve Way signs - even if theres nothing coming you should physically stop to check before turning.
     
  20. Intermanaut

    Intermanaut Well-Known Member

Share This Page