Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: paul george on 15 Dec 2009 08:08 On 15 Dec, 12:31, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > Peter Grange wrote: > > > Oi, what's wrong withGillingham? > > Nothing. Nice little place in Dorset, on the way to more important places. No, that's Gillingham, he said Gillingham.
From: MasonS on 15 Dec 2009 08:20 On 15 Dec, 09:53, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > In article <q4mei59akbtu18cbavblv4nu1tsuhh4...(a)4ax.com>, Peter Grange > says... > > > So, let's get this straight. You say a motorist who payed more vat on > > a car than a cyclist payed on his bike (which is true in most, but not > > all, cases) has more right to use the road, even if they both paid > > zero VED, but someone who paid more vat on his yacht than the motorist > > paid on his car has no more right to use the road? > > BWAHAHAHA...someone who has to resort to the argument of the right to > use a boat on a road has well and truly lost the argument. Dear oh dear, do you honestly think there is a dept. at HM Treasury which separates the VAT from new boats from the VAT from car tyres, so that the right pound coin can go to road building? I'm afraid Medway Highwayman well and truly shot himself in the foot by bringing in VAT to his old "road tax" argument. -- Simon Mason
From: MasonS on 15 Dec 2009 08:35 On 15 Dec, 12:31, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > Mas...(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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Here is the link I posted for you two days ago. The CBI aren't silly are they? I will look for the 25% article in the meantime. http://qurl.com/n5hwq My apologies, it was "Mr Benn" who offered to buy me a builder's vest. -- Simon Mason
From: JNugent on 15 Dec 2009 09:53 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 15 Dec, 12:31, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> Mas...(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. > Here is the link I posted for you two days ago. The CBI aren't silly > are they? No. Far from it. They're just biased in favour of commercial traffic as oppoosed to traffic in general. Always look out for motivation when assessing motive. And the organisation which did the "study" you cite is "Transport 2000" (more honestly described as Transport 1895, since that's the time they'd like us all to go back to in transport terms). Transport 1895 is a consortium of businesses (mainly bus operators) and loonies with axes to grind. It is not objective, fair or unbiased and the conclusions of its "studies" can quite reasonably be dismissed as polemic and special-interest pleading. And guess what? They think that it would be better if everyone rode on buses. Fancy that. They couldn't be biased, could they? > I will look for the 25% article in the meantime. > > http://qurl.com/n5hwq > > My apologies, it was "Mr Benn" who offered to buy me a builder's vest. Fair enough.
From: MasonS on 15 Dec 2009 09:59
On 15 Dec, 14:53, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: > > On 15 Dec, 12:31, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >> Mas...(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. > > Here is the link I posted for you two days ago. The CBI aren't silly > > are they? > > No. Far from it. They're just biased in favour of commercial traffic as > oppoosed to traffic in general. Always look out for motivation when assessing > motive. > > And the organisation which did the "study" you cite is "Transport 2000" (more > honestly described as Transport 1895, since that's the time they'd like us > all to go back to in transport terms). > > Transport 1895 is a consortium of businesses (mainly bus operators) and > loonies with axes to grind. It is not objective, fair or unbiased and the > conclusions of its "studies" can quite reasonably be dismissed as polemic and > special-interest pleading. > > And guess what? They think that it would be better if everyone rode on buses. > > Fancy that. > > They couldn't be biased, could they? text - No point in me wasting time in getting out the 25% article then - no doubt that would be equally "biased". :-) -- Simon Mason |