Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: dan on 16 Dec 2009 06:43 Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> writes: > 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. Yes, because you wouldn't want to pull out across it or cut it up if it turns out to be a motorcyclist, because then you'll be in a fight with a big scary man in leather whose Hells Angel friends will come round and stomp you. Seriously, early recognition as a cyclist _from behind_ is probably no bad thing, but from the front (e.g. oncoming vehicles and vehicles waiting at side roads) I'd just as soon they _didn't_ assume I'm moving at slightly-above-walking-pace, thankewverramuch. Because, chances are, I'm not. -dan
From: Peter Grange on 16 Dec 2009 08:14 On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:41:05 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Peter Grange wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:37:47 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: >>>> On 14 Dec, 17:54, "The Medway Handyman" >>>> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> Peter Grange wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:39:32 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >>>>>> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian wrote: >>>>>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled >>>>>>>> happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Would it be OK if all of country's millions of bicycles, which >>>>>>>>>> would be in VED band A (Fee = �0), got a stamped round bit of >>>>>>>>>> paper from the Post Office and stuck it on their frames? Would >>>>>>>>>> that do it for you? I wouldn't mind if it made van drivers >>>>>>>>>> gave me more respect on the road. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, not really. They would have to pay a fee to cover the >>>>>>>>> inconvenience of admin. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does that apply to one form of zero-charge VED, yet not to >>>>>>>> others? >>>>> >>>>>>> Because zero rated cars still have number plates, so the pokice >>>>>>> can check they have insurance & trace them when they break >>>>>>> traffic laws. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Or do you think that all zero-charge VED should pay an >>>>>>>> "inconvenience of admin" fee? >>>>> >>>>>>> No, they pay enough in VAT & fuel duty to cover it. >>>>> >>>>>> Hang on, we had the VAT argument already. In your strange world >>>>>> VAT on bikes doesn't count, so wht does it on cars? >>>>> >>>>> Because its a hell of a lot more innit. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist- Hide quoted text - >>>>> >>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>> >>>> Ah, we are making progress now. So the millionaire cyclist who pay >>>> for his new yacht and incurs more in VAT than you will earn in your >>>> entire life, is more entitled to use the road than you? >>> >>> No idiot boy, he pays the same fee for using the road as I do. >>> >>>> >>>> Game, set and match. >>> >>> Only in your deranged mind. >> >> 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? > >No I don't say that. Read your posts. You have said that VAT on a car is "more innit", and you have said that the millionaire pays the same VED so has no more right to the road. -- Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist
From: Peter Grange on 16 Dec 2009 08:15 On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:15:21 +0000, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> considered 15 Dec 2009 07:46:16 GMT the >perfect time to write: > >>NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >>saying: >> >>> Show me a millionaire cyclist, I'll bet you can count them on the >>> fingers of one hand. >> >>Mayor of London and next Prime Minister apart, since you'll probably >>suggest they only do it for political gain, how about a self-made >>billionaire? >>http://snipurl.com/tp2kp > >There's also Alan Sugar. Lance Armstrong :-)
From: Peter Grange on 16 Dec 2009 08:17 On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:44:14 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Peter Grange wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:39:40 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Peter Grange wrote: >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:54:24 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >>>> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Peter Grange wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:39:32 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >>>>>> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian wrote: >>>>>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled >>>>>>>> happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Would it be OK if all of country's millions of bicycles, which >>>>>>>>>> would be in VED band A (Fee = �0), got a stamped round bit of >>>>>>>>>> paper from the Post Office and stuck it on their frames? Would >>>>>>>>>> that do it for you? I wouldn't mind if it made van drivers >>>>>>>>>> gave me more respect on the road. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, not really. They would have to pay a fee to cover the >>>>>>>>> inconvenience of admin. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does that apply to one form of zero-charge VED, yet not to >>>>>>>> others? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because zero rated cars still have number plates, so the pokice >>>>>>> can check they have insurance & trace them when they break >>>>>>> traffic laws. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or do you think that all zero-charge VED should pay an >>>>>>>> "inconvenience of admin" fee? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, they pay enough in VAT & fuel duty to cover it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hang on, we had the VAT argument already. In your strange world >>>>>> VAT on bikes doesn't count, so wht does it on cars? >>>>> >>>>> Because its a hell of a lot more innit. >>>> >>>> So what was your argument against the millionaire paying more tax >>>> then? >>> >>> The percentage of VAT is the same, but 15% on a �100 push bike and >>> 15% on a �10,000 car are vastly different sums of money. >> >> You really have no idea do you. I would no more ride a �100 bike than >> you would use a Trabant van to run your business. Try and stay on the >> same planet. >> >>> >>> I didn't have an argument about millionaire cyclists. >> >> Except to say that a motorist has more right to be on the road than a >> cyclist because he (in the majority of cases) pays more vat than the >> cyclist, but the millionaire who paid more vat than the motorist >> doesn't have an equally greater right than the motorist. > >Do stop making things up. Everyone whos pays road tax has the right to use >the road. Those who don't pay it, don't. You're entitled to your opinion, which is all that is. My opinion is that you are either a troll or gobsmackingly ignorant. -- Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist
From: mileburner on 16 Dec 2009 09:09
"The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:qVSVm.15623$Ym4.9384(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > More likely it became part of the lexicon becouse so many people think > cyclists are wankers. Sorry to interrupt, I was taking a break from participating in this mindless inane drivel but I was just wondering, why is it that Mr Medway is currently the most prolific poster on a cycling group, but he seems to have little interest in cycling and all he does is deride cyclists? Cycling is not a Bad Thing. So wassup? |