Talk:Locomotive Acts

message: Suppress motor cars in the 1860s? Pull the other one. Norvo 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was notable, he wrote it, it is a significant view.  It should stay in. -- de Facto (talk). 09:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The major issue is that we provide no way for the reader to assess the validity of the claim. If the claim itself is notable, then there should be some other sources either supporting it or refuting it. If no such sources exist, then the claim has a notability problem. If such sources exist but we ignore them, then we have a NPOV problem. As Norvo originally pointed out, the claim is pretty absurd on its face. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" --61.214.155.14 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, instead of 'Suppress motor cars' substitute 'suppress developing competition to the Existing Railway and Horse-Drawn haulage industries'. You might want to look at the entry for 1865 here. Or the last paragraph on page 9 of this. Also discussed in wikipedia here and has some print references. It's not a particularly extraordinary claim... a large existing industry sector with extensive links to those in power gets new legislation to restrict a developing competitor. Not exactly a wild or unprecedented claim. EasyTarget (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice new material, thanks. I certainly see a pattern of laws supporting one industry at the expense of another with and changing power balances over time and one can see if playing out in other transport acts over history. Anyone fancy having a go at integrating it? PeterEastern (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  I have added a brief para using the above sources. PeterEastern (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you realised that non of the above cited sources allegedly backing the role of railway or horse-drawn transport industries indicates a reliable original source, if any source at all. The above quoted paper this even fully misconceives what the Red Flag Act was. It's a typical myth, trying to explain what seems to need explanation from a nowadays perspective (namely the "low" speed limit) while a speed limit of 2 to 4 mph in times when roads belonged to pedestrians and to horse-drwan carriages which were not faster than a pedestrian (there were higher speed on rails, of course, but that's something different) was simply reasonable. Mhaenggi (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppress Motor Cars? 

message: The use of the term "locomotive" seems to be confusing a few editors. Here it refers to "road locomotives" - a common term for motorised vehicles in the age before internal combustion engines were common place. It does not refer to locomotive trains that run on rails. I have therefore reinstated a WikiProjectRoads class but removed an earlier WikiProjectTrains class. Ephebi (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Locomotives" 

message: I am not convinced by the veracity of the offline cite of the Times 1895, the mention of a 1 shilling fine and Fareham. In October 1895 John Henry Knight of Farnham (and his assistant) reportedly deliberately confronted the authorities in a deliberately unlicensed petroleum vehicle of his own manufacture, and was deliberately not using a red flag man. His fine was half a crown plus 10 shillings costs.  He is often conflated with Walter Arnold of Kent who received the first fine for simple speeding just 3 months later (Jan 1896), and whose fine was 1 shilling, but there was no aspect that was relevant to the repeal of the act. 
Is the flaw due to conflated facts and bad spelling in this article (Fareham vs Farnham) or is it all in my head? Regards Chienlit (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these are all different cases. To quote: The Times, Wednesday, Dec 18, 1895; pg. 4; "THE AUTO-CAR.-At Fareham Petty Sessions on Monday Mr J A Koosen ... was summonsed for using a locomotive without causing a person to precede without a flag ... The magistrate decided that the auto-car was a locomotive but as this was the first case of the kind they imposed a nominal penalty of 1s and the costs."  Ephebi (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I think we should expand and clarify the article to avoid more idiots joining me here in the bear trap. Chienlit (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1895 court case

message: Removed:
1878 act
The act also:
*Made the red flag optional under local regulation
*The distance ahead of the still necessary pedestrian crew member was reduced to 20 yards (18 m).
*Vehicles were required to stop on the sight of a horse.
*Vehicles were forbidden from emitting smoke or steam to prevent horses being alarmed.
1861 act
*Weight limit of 12 tons.
I removed these I didn;t find it in the acts.
Not found in the book - are  these correct or not? Prof.Haddock (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements not found in acts