Blackwall Tunnel Closures
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Overtaking at roundabouts
Next: Saab sold to Spyker
From: The Medway Handyman on 25 Jan 2010 19:15 mileburner wrote: > NM wrote: >> On 25 Jan, 19:01, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> NM wrote: >>>> On 25 Jan, 13:36, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> "�i�ardo" <h...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>> news:Sge7n.31114$u23.16344(a)newsfe05.ams2... >>> >>>>>> Fine, as long as cyclists are prepared to pay for using the >>>>>> roads. >>> >>>>> Why? No one else does... >>> >>>> You know full well they do, so many times explained. You must enjoy >>>> looking like a cretin? >>> >>> No-one pays to use the roads. >>> >>> Registered keepers of motor vehicles pay VED to allow vehicles to be >>> used on the roads but: >>> >>> No-one pays to use the roads. >>> >>> HTH (but it probably wont :-( ) >> >> As you well know that is semantics and bollox. > > You might call it semantics, I would call it the fact of the matter. But then again, you are a proven fuckwit - so its clearly semantics and bollox. -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
From: The Medway Handyman on 25 Jan 2010 19:25 mileburner wrote: > The Medway Handyman wrote: >> mileburner wrote: > >> <WRIGGLE ALERT> >>> >>> No-one pays to use the roads. >> >> <WRIGGLE ALERT> >>> >>> Registered keepers of motor vehicles pay VED to allow vehicles to be >>> used on the roads but: >> >> <WRIGGLE ALERT> >>> >>> No-one pays to use the roads. > > And you point is exactly? That fuckwit cyclists continue to use the sad old arguments over & over again, despite them having ben shot down in flames. > > You be telling us next that "drivers" pay "Road Tax" [sic] Trying to be a clever little boy again. Everybody understands what Road Tax means. > The only "Road Tax" [sic] I pay is as the registered keeper of vehicles. And you pay that to use those vehicles on the roads. But you don't pay to use your push bike on the roads. > You'll be telling us soon that "cyclists" dont pay it. <Yawn> How many times have you been told that cyclist scum don't pay a 'specific' tax to use the roads? How many times has that pathetic argument been shot down? How many times have you resorted to wriggling, semantics, abuse & lies in a pathetic attempt to support it? > If that's the case, I should get a refund huh? Maybe you should get a brain huh? -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
From: The Medway Handyman on 25 Jan 2010 19:26 mileburner wrote: > NM wrote: >> On 25 Jan, 21:29, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>> You be telling us next that "drivers" pay "Road Tax" [sic] >>> >>> The only "Road Tax" [sic] I pay is as the registered keeper of >>> vehicles. >>> >>> You'll be telling us soon that "cyclists" dont pay it. >>> >>> If that's the case, I should get a refund huh? >> >> I'd like that a rebate from something I've never paid, sounds >> attractive. > > You miss the point. > > Drivers do not pay the Medway Road Tax. > > Cyclists do not pay the Medway Road Tax. > > The Medway Road Tax only exists in his mind. Still can't answer the argument then? Cyclists are freeloading sponging scum and you know it. Made yourself look a prat again. -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
From: Tom Crispin on 26 Jan 2010 01:29 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:57:42 +0000, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote: >On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:24:18 +0000, Tom Crispin ><kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > >>On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:06:11 +0000, JNugent >><JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> >>>Tom Crispin wrote: >>> >>>> JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> The older tunnel wasn't really built for traffic at 30mph. The bends are/were >>>>> necessary because of the geology of the ground and because of the places >>>>> where the terminations were needed. >>> >>>> No. The bends are there to prevent horses bolting for the light, and >>>> because of the geography of the Greenwich Penninsular. >>> >>>That's an additional - if far-fetched - reason you are proffering. It does >>>not militate against the two I gave (indeed, you support one of them - >>>probably both of them). >>> >>>> It is ironic that riding a horse through the tunnel is prohibited. >>> >>>Not really. The "horse bolting the light" story is highly likely to be an >>>urban myth (unless you can find an authoritative source for it), and there >>>would be nothing to stop the horses "bolting for the light" on the not >>>inconsiderable relatively stretches between the outer bends and the portals. >> >>Horses bolting for the light may be an urban myth, but engineers >>designing bends in tunnels in the hope of preventing horses bolting >>for the light is not. > > >I assume that you have a source for this - other than Wikipedia? > >As others have pointed out elsewhere - why was this technique not used >in other tunnels from Roman times onwards. What tunnels are you thinking about. >What about canal tunnels? All the longer canal tunnels had a portage way above ground for horses, while the barge was taken through the tunnel by the crew 'legging' it. Indeed, there are examples of shorter 'horse tunnels' being built above canal tunnels. www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5117 www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1172572 I doubt the engineers would have bothered with separate tunnels for horses if there wasn't a particular problem with, either leading a horse into a tunnel, or a horse bolting for the exit. >No - I am sorry - just an Urban Myth.
From: Tom Crispin on 26 Jan 2010 01:40
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:03:16 +0000, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>> But does the bridge *have* to be 65m high? > >> The Port of London Authority will not allow anything less > >...unless it swings or lifts? I have already said as much in this sub thread. "A bridge would have to rise or be able to be raised to at least 65m" OK - the wording is not great. I should have subtituted "open" for "rise". |