From: PeterG on
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
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
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
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


"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.