Prev: Wiltshire gang jailed for 'half UK's caravan thefts'
Next: Compare the Market dot com are pants.
From: PeterG on 11 Mar 2010 02:09 On Mar 11, 12:34 am, shaun.jamesons...(a)ntlworld.com (Shaun) wrote: > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:41:44 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > > > > <davidl...(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >Shaun wrote: > >> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:50:11 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > >> <davidl...(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >>> Shaun wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 15:22:35 -0800 (PST), Marie > >>>> <marie.law...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>>> Looks like the IOM might have the right idea. > > >>>>> ALL bicycles ridden by those over 16 should be licenced, Castletown > >>>>> Commissioners believe. > > >>>>> See > > >>>>>http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Call-for-bicycles-to-be.6132083.jp > > >>>>> Marie > > >>>> Having a tax disc almost certainly stops motor vehicles being > >>>> driven badly. They save hundreds of life a year. I've lost count of > >>>> the number of drivers who act like maniacs while waiting for a new > >>>> one to arrive in the post. > > >>> <WRIGGLE ALERT> > > >>> That old chestnut again. The regulation of motorists is not 100% > >>> perfect, so there is no point using it for cyclists. The system > >>> works for the vast majority of motorists and would work for the vast > >>> majority of cyclists. > > >> It is possible to have an entire bureaucracy dedicated to tracking > >> the ownership of bicycle frames. Just as it is also possbile to track > >> the ownership of underpants, paper clips, or teapots. But whats the > >> point ? > > >Because a push bike is a vehicle. > > So is a wheelbarrow > > >Because cyclists frequently break traffic > >laws and can't be traced, > > An insignifcant number compared to pedestrians. > > >because we could ensure cyclists were insured, > >because we could ensure they had passed a test of competence & had > >roadworthy cycles. > > (of course forgetting laws already exist against unroadworthy bicycles > and most people are insured via home insurance) > > Most cyclists are children. But if you want to see traffic police > spending their time asking eight year olds for their papers, go ahead. > > > And tax could be collected to pay for all the 'rights' > >they expect, but don't pay for. > > You are aware that everybody who pays taxes funds the roads and the > only people who have any right to use the highway are pedestrians, > horse rider and cyclists ? > > Thought not ah the old, 'most cyclists are insured through hose insurance' mantra again, pity it's not true. PeterG
From: delboy on 11 Mar 2010 14:39 On 11 Mar, 00:34, shaun.jamesons...(a)ntlworld.com (Shaun) wrote: > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:41:44 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > > > > > > <davidl...(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >Shaun wrote: > >> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:50:11 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > >> <davidl...(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >>> Shaun wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 15:22:35 -0800 (PST), Marie > >>>> <marie.law...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>>> Looks like the IOM might have the right idea. > > >>>>> ALL bicycles ridden by those over 16 should be licenced, Castletown > >>>>> Commissioners believe. > > >>>>> See > > >>>>>http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Call-for-bicycles-to-be.6132083.jp > > >>>>> Marie > > >>>> Having a tax disc almost certainly stops motor vehicles being > >>>> driven badly. They save hundreds of life a year. I've lost count of > >>>> the number of drivers who act like maniacs while waiting for a new > >>>> one to arrive in the post. > > >>> <WRIGGLE ALERT> > > >>> That old chestnut again. The regulation of motorists is not 100% > >>> perfect, so there is no point using it for cyclists. The system > >>> works for the vast majority of motorists and would work for the vast > >>> majority of cyclists. > > >> It is possible to have an entire bureaucracy dedicated to tracking > >> the ownership of bicycle frames. Just as it is also possbile to track > >> the ownership of underpants, paper clips, or teapots. But whats the > >> point ? > > >Because a push bike is a vehicle. > > So is a wheelbarrow > > >Because cyclists frequently break traffic > >laws and can't be traced, > > An insignifcant number compared to pedestrians. > > >because we could ensure cyclists were insured, > >because we could ensure they had passed a test of competence & had > >roadworthy cycles. > > (of course forgetting laws already exist against unroadworthy bicycles > and most people are insured via home insurance) It would be nice if the Police enforced them, instead of persecuting motorists for minor speeding and minor infringements of bus lanes! > > Most cyclists are children. But if you want to see traffic police > spending their time asking eight year olds for their papers, go ahead. > > > And tax could be collected to pay for all the 'rights' > >they expect, but don't pay for. > > You are aware that everybody who pays taxes funds the roads and the > only people who have any right to use the highway are pedestrians, > horse rider and cyclists ? > So does any properly licenced driver and vehicle. The above groups are specifically NOT allowed to use motorways. Derek C
From: JNugent on 11 Mar 2010 14:52 Phil W Lee wrote: > PeterG <petergraill(a)yahoo.co.uk> considered Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:09:28 >> ah the old, 'most cyclists are insured through hose insurance' mantra >> again, pity it's not true. > It seems to be as true as "most motorists are insured through motor > insurance". What? A *majority* of motor-vehicles (and/or their drivers) uninsured? Are you sure? And if you are, where did you get the data from?
From: Tony Dragon on 11 Mar 2010 14:56 Phil W Lee wrote: > PeterG <petergraill(a)yahoo.co.uk> considered Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:09:28 > -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: > >> On Mar 11, 12:34 am, shaun.jamesons...(a)ntlworld.com (Shaun) wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:41:44 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >>> >>> >>> >>> <davidl...(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Shaun wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:50:11 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >>>>> <davidl...(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Shaun wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 15:22:35 -0800 (PST), Marie >>>>>>> <marie.law...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> Looks like the IOM might have the right idea. >>>>>>>> ALL bicycles ridden by those over 16 should be licenced, Castletown >>>>>>>> Commissioners believe. >>>>>>>> See >>>>>>>> http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Call-for-bicycles-to-be.6132083.jp >>>>>>>> Marie >>>>>>> Having a tax disc almost certainly stops motor vehicles being >>>>>>> driven badly. They save hundreds of life a year. I've lost count of >>>>>>> the number of drivers who act like maniacs while waiting for a new >>>>>>> one to arrive in the post. >>>>>> <WRIGGLE ALERT> >>>>>> That old chestnut again. The regulation of motorists is not 100% >>>>>> perfect, so there is no point using it for cyclists. The system >>>>>> works for the vast majority of motorists and would work for the vast >>>>>> majority of cyclists. >>>>> It is possible to have an entire bureaucracy dedicated to tracking >>>>> the ownership of bicycle frames. Just as it is also possbile to track >>>>> the ownership of underpants, paper clips, or teapots. But whats the >>>>> point ? >>>> Because a push bike is a vehicle. >>> So is a wheelbarrow >>> >>>> Because cyclists frequently break traffic >>>> laws and can't be traced, >>> An insignifcant number compared to pedestrians. >>> >>>> because we could ensure cyclists were insured, >>>> because we could ensure they had passed a test of competence & had >>>> roadworthy cycles. >>> (of course forgetting laws already exist against unroadworthy bicycles >>> and most people are insured via home insurance) >>> >>> Most cyclists are children. But if you want to see traffic police >>> spending their time asking eight year olds for their papers, go ahead. >>> >>>> And tax could be collected to pay for all the 'rights' >>>> they expect, but don't pay for. >>> You are aware that everybody who pays taxes funds the roads and the >>> only people who have any right to use the highway are pedestrians, >>> horse rider and cyclists ? >>> >>> Thought not >> ah the old, 'most cyclists are insured through hose insurance' mantra >> again, pity it's not true. >> > It seems to be as true as "most motorists are insured through motor > insurance". Most motorists are indeed insured, have you proof that most cyclists are insured? -- Tony Dragon
From: Brimstone on 11 Mar 2010 16:52
"The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:z1bmn.49446$Ym4.36200(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > Shaun wrote: >> You are aware that everybody who pays taxes funds the roads and the >> only people who have any right to use the highway are pedestrians, >> horse rider and cyclists ? > > More old bollox. Cyclists do not pay a 'specific' tax to use the roads > fuckwit - motorists do. > Let me rephrase that for you. Most road users do not pay a 'specific' tax to use the roads fuckwit - motorists are the only ones that do. So to clarify, pedestrians, horse riders/drivers, herders and drovers of animals, cycle riders, operators/drivers of historic vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973, electric vehicles, mowing machines, steam-powered vehicles, agricultural, horticultural and forestry vehicles and vehicles used by disabled drivers do not pay a specific tax to use the roads. Which just leaves the exception to the rule, normal everyday motorists. The rule being that no one pays a specific tax to use the public highway. |