Brexit Party politician rails against “constant reduction in speed” as Senedd backs default 20mph speed limit in residential areas

Not condoning dangerous cycling, but legally speaking speed limits don't apply to cyclists. They could be done for furious cycling, however

the little onion wrote:

They could be done for furious cycling, however

Been an ambition of mine for years.

We certainly should!  Some Strava segments are plain stupid. Like the one down the high street of the local town. The KOM for that one is just gross stupidity. 

True not even the Bristol Police.

handlebarcam wrote:

Quote:

After suggesting that the only way in which injuries and deaths on the roads could be eliminated would be "for us all to return to walking," Rowlands facetiously floated the idea of drastically reducing the limit on motorways.

Expecting a Brexiteer to argue logically and fairly is pointless. They learnt their lesson back in 2016: disingenuousness wins.

Far too polite; they just lied.

Still, the Russia report might be released next week, unless Boris the Liar can prevent it, so we might be rejoining the week after.

I voted for Brexit. I believe in 20mph speeds or lower in residential and built up areas. I believe in making cars the least preferred option for personal transport wherever possible. I hope that is logical enough for you. 

Same here.

Anyone would think that making broad sweeping generalisations about half of the population was unwise, inaccurate and ironically a bit disingenuous.

Not everyone, just under half of everyone...

paulrbarnard wrote:

Not everyone, just under half of everyone...

Actually, very considerably under half of everyone, and as signatories to the Venice Commission, the tiny majority of the people who voted should have been ignored.

eburtthebike wrote:

Actually, very considerably under half of everyone, and as signatories to the Venice convention, the tiny majority of the people who voted should have been ignored.

You've posted this lie before Burt.

There is nothing of the sort in the Venice convention.

Rich_cb wrote:

You've posted this lie before Burt. There is nothing of the sort in the Venice convention.

The "Venice Convention" is literally a convention centre in Venice. Do you mean the Venice Commision? If you do, then the breach of spending caps (and we haven't even got into what the Russians spent on it) would call for the referendum to be anulled.

Take it up with Burt. I was just quoting him.

For clarity though the Venice Commison specifically advises against a minimum quorum or the use of a super majority.

"7. Quorum It is advisable not to provide for: a. a turn-out quorum (threshold, minimum percentage), because it assimilates voters who abstain to those who vote no; b. an approval quorum (approval by a minimum percentage of registered voters), since it risks involving a difficult political situation if the draft is adopted by a simple majority lower than the necessary threshold."

It's also worth knowing that Remain significantly outspent Leave, that the Electoral Commision's fine against BeLeave was overturned in court and that the CPS declined to press charges against either Vote Leave or BeLeave.

The original Electoral Commsion investigation related to an alleged £500k overspend by Vote Leave so even if that were proven, which it wasn't, then Remain would still have outspent Leave by £6m.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/electio...

And the millions of Europeans who have/had made Britain their home, and the millions of Brits who have/had made Europe their home, should have been allowed to vote but weren't. So hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have been devastated had no say in the matter. Tragic.

I said Brexiteer not brexit voter. The -eer suffix denotes an active participant or campaigner. It derives from electioneer, which implies at least knocking on doors on behalf of a candidate, not merely voting for them.

There are also people who repeat Brexit lies, to acquaintances or online, but that's not the same as inventing or being paid to spread them. And I didn't say leavers either.

Of course, whenever anyone says anything about the way the leave campaign was conducted, it gets painted it as an attack on "half of the population". Like I said, disingenuous.

That's not the commonly accepted usage of Brexiteer.

See here.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/brexiteer

Even if your definition were correct it would still be disingenuous to suggest that every single person who campaigned to Leave the EU behaved in the exact same way.

I've no problem whatsoever with people criticising Brexit or the Leave campaign. We live in a reasonably free country after all.

What I do take issue with is people seeking to imply that all Leave voters have the same motives/foibles/flaws.

That's clearly not true yet it is suggested time and time again.

handlebarcam wrote:

I said Brexiteer not brexit voter. The -eer suffix denotes an active participant or campaigner. It derives from electioneer, which implies at least knocking on doors on behalf of a candidate, not merely voting for them.

It derives from wankeer, surely?

slappop wrote:

handlebarcam wrote:

I said Brexiteer not brexit voter. The -eer suffix denotes an active participant or campaigner. It derives from electioneer, which implies at least knocking on doors on behalf of a candidate, not merely voting for them.

It derives from wankeer, surely?

Lololol. Clever and funny!

slappop wrote:

handlebarcam wrote:

I said Brexiteer not brexit voter. The -eer suffix denotes an active participant or campaigner. It derives from electioneer, which implies at least knocking on doors on behalf of a candidate, not merely voting for them.

It derives from wankeer, surely?

Is that Dutch for driver?

Now there's an admission you don't hear too often.

Do you still want Brexit?