Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: SW on 6 Dec 2009 16:56 On 6 Dec, 21:12, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Come the day when cyclists have to pass a test, have to have a yearly safety > check, have to display number plates, have to have insurance & obey traffic > laws they will have the right to use the roads. > Cyclists already have the legal right to use the roads. Don't you have any respect for the law ? SW - The Tax Paying Cyclist
From: DavidR on 6 Dec 2009 17:31 "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote > DavidR <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote >> > MasonS(a)BP.com <MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Look at the advert at the bottom right of this page. >> >> How much would the driver of this car pay? >> >> Should he be allowed on the roads having paid no VED? >> >> >> >> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zmotormouth.jpg >> > >> > That's the car that emits less CO2 than the equivalent number of >> > cyclists you mean? >> >> Yep, all these cars carrying 5 people all in suspended animation are >> common >> as muck round these parts. > > I see that logic still escapes the average cyclist. and reality escapes Steve Firth.
From: DavidR on 6 Dec 2009 17:52 "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message news:1jaa31o.1khdsf114aaof0N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... > DavidR <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: > >> > When you cycle, you exert energy over and above that of a person who is >> > driving a car or walking. >> >> Cycling does not require more energy than walking. > > According to a bunch of cyclists, it does. Are you saying that they are > liars? No, the cyclists are not liars (but I don't think you meant to write what you did). Lets put it like this. One day I might walk for an hour with a heart rate average of 120bpm. The next occasion I do the same journey on a bike in 20 minutes at an average of 130bpm, and then spend the next 40 minutes relaxing in a chair at 56bpm. Who is going to be first to suggest that 7200 heart beats requires less energy than 4840?
From: DavidR on 6 Dec 2009 17:58 "Strangely Composed" <here(a)there.nowhere> wrote > If you're going to quibble... DavidR said: >> "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote >>> In article <hfe63g$6ql$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner >>> says... >>> >>>> While out on my bike today, I was thinking to myself, I wonder what >>>> the vehicle emissions are on my bikes and what the VED would be if >>>> there was any. I came to the conclusion that the emissions are nil and >>>> the VED would >>>> be zero. >>>> >>> So you're a clueless cyclist. I'll give you a lesson. >>> >>> When you cycle, you exert energy over and above that of a person who is >>> driving a car or walking. >> >> Cycling does not require more energy than walking. >> > Even if you assume cycling at walking pace the cyclist still has to move > the mass of the bike as well as him/herself, which will take more energy. > > There is also additional energy required to overcome the friction > inherent in the mechanisms of the cycle. > > As cyclists tend to move faster than walkers other factors such as > overcoming wind resistance and kinetic energy conversion. Oh, really? When I get on a bike I somehow make do with the same engine as when I walk yet manage to go further & faster. In accordance with Newton's laws it suggests the machine is more efficient. Perhaps you know otherwise?
From: JNugent on 6 Dec 2009 19:01
Phil W Lee wrote: > "MasonS(a)BP.com": >>>> there are some numpties out there who would actually like to have >>>> in place a system of licensing to issue tax discs to cyclists on the basis >>>> that we end up paying nothing. >>>> Bizarre! >>> No more bizarre than (the few) zero-rated car models having to show a tax >>> disc bought at �NIL. >>> It's the registration and accountability which are the bigger issues in >>> either case. >>> Additionally, of course (though it's convenient for some to accidentally >>> forget it), the zero-rated car will still run on �5 a gallon petrol, of which >>> about �.50 (perhaps more) is tax. [later corrected to [�3.50".] >> �5 a gallon is about �1-10 a litre. I just bought some 95% water >> called beer and it cost me �3 a litre. >> Petrol is dirt cheap considering its journey to your tank. Don't talk daft. Its factor cost is less than �1.50 a gallon. It is tax which makes its pump price �5.00 a gallon. > Which proves that if you derive your cycling calories from beer, you > may well be paying more duty that the motorist. How much of a �3 pint (I'll assume you're in the quality end of the market) is tax? Hereabouts, the tax in the price of beer (across the pub counter) is a third or less. Tax is about 70% of the price of petrol (maybe a little more). |