Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: MasonS on 15 Dec 2009 06:36 On 14 Dec, 20:47, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: > > On 14 Dec, 18:03, "The Medway Handyman" > > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: > >>> On 14 Dec, 09:37, "Mr Benn" <nos...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>> So you admit you are a danger to innocent motorists? > > >>>> He's a danger to himself because he won't take sensible advice.- > >>>> Hide quoted text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>> When you've clocked up 60,000 miles in 10 years on a bike, then you > >>> can lecture me on safety. > > >> I've clocked up 40,000 miles a year for 20 years in a car. > > >> What aspect of safety did you want a lecture on? Red lights? One way > >> streets? Pavements? > > >> -- > >> Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist > > > Never ride on pavements. > > No one way streets around here. > > Never go through red lights. > > > Sorry I don't fit your narrow minded viewpoint. > > So you are the only cyclist in existance who never does any of those things? > Don't you find those flying pigs a hazard? > Blimey - not only is he the highest paid handy man van driver in the county, he never speeds and is never on his hand held phone. That's a whole squadron of flying pigs.
From: MasonS on 15 Dec 2009 06:39 On 15 Dec, 11:22, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: > > On 14 Dec, 11:20, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > >> were saying: > > >>> Even our work's HSE dept has admitted that relying solely on hi-vis is a > >>> failure. > >> "Relying solely on hi-vis" is not the same as "ignoring hi-vis > >> completely", of course. > > >> Yes, of course a decent set of lights is vital. But - equally - hi-vis > >> can help to identify "that little red light in the distance" as a cyclist > >> as early as possible, which can only be of benefit. > > > I agree, but JNugent doesn't believe that reflective bits on specific > > cycling clothing counts as hi-vis, it's a cheapo builder's vest or > > nothing for him. > > ??? > > I don't remember anything at all about any such topic. > > Perhaps you could cite the post? > > Or perhaps it's your day off and you "can't be arsed", just like you "can't > be arsed" to look up the figures that support your odd=view that the costs of > "motoring" [TM] are five times the amount collected in motoring taxes?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I sent you a link to the Independent article that showed it was more than double, with the CBI citing congestion costing the nation 20 billion a year alone. -- Simon Mason
From: Peter Grange on 15 Dec 2009 07:18 On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:15:24 +0000, Happi Monday <happi(a)munday.com> wrote: >Adrian wrote: > >> Well, it's certainly a well-known fact that the Medway towns are peopled >> almost entirely with knuckle-dragging fuckwits, so that theory may well >> have legs. > >I've lived there and can confirm this observation. >Jesus what a shithole. I think I'd rather live in scouse-land than >Gillingham! Oi, what's wrong with Gillingham?
From: JNugent on 15 Dec 2009 07:31 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>> Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com>: >>>>> Even our work's HSE dept has admitted that relying solely on hi-vis is a >>>>> failure. >>>> "Relying solely on hi-vis" is not the same as "ignoring hi-vis >>>> completely", of course. >>>> Yes, of course a decent set of lights is vital. But - equally - hi-vis >>>> can help to identify "that little red light in the distance" as a cyclist >>>> as early as possible, which can only be of benefit. >>> I agree, but JNugent doesn't believe that reflective bits on specific >>> cycling clothing counts as hi-vis, it's a cheapo builder's vest or >>> nothing for him. >> ??? >> I don't remember anything at all about any such topic. >> Perhaps you could cite the post? >> Or perhaps it's your day off and you "can't be arsed", just like you "can't >> be arsed" to look up the figures that support your odd=view that the costs of >> "motoring" [TM] are five times the amount collected in motoring taxes? > I sent you a link to the Independent article that showed it was more > than double, with the CBI citing congestion costing the nation 20 > billion a year alone. You may *think* you've sent me something, but you haven't. Why not just post the URL here? And what about something in an attempt to shore up your *fabrication* (above) about the "builder's vest" (or whetever else you were going on about)? Don't forget to explain how congestion "costs" anyone except those caught in the congestion. The whole silly argument about the "costs" of congestion has to be predicated on the fact that "the nation" needs transport. If the country didn't need the products of transport, it couldn't be subject to "costs" of delays to that transport. Now... add in the benefits conferred by transport (if you can "be arsed", that is). I don't really expect an answer to this, bu the way.
From: JNugent on 15 Dec 2009 07:31
Peter Grange wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:15:24 +0000, Happi Monday <happi(a)munday.com> > wrote: > >> Adrian wrote: >> >>> Well, it's certainly a well-known fact that the Medway towns are peopled >>> almost entirely with knuckle-dragging fuckwits, so that theory may well >>> have legs. >> I've lived there and can confirm this observation. >> Jesus what a shithole. I think I'd rather live in scouse-land than >> Gillingham! > > Oi, what's wrong with Gillingham? Nothing. Nice little place in Dorset, on the way to more important places. |