Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: JNugent on 16 Dec 2009 19:21 NM wrote: > On 16 Dec, 19:51, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> The Medway Handyman wrote: >>> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>>> On 16 Dec, 10:07, Happi Monday <ha...(a)munday.com> wrote: >>>>> paul george wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> I meant gil'ham, home of the Chav, and worse, home of the lovely >>>>> Chavette. >>>> Chatham is home of the Chav. >>>> "However one of many suggested 'origins' for the word 'Chav' was that >>>> it is an abbreviation of 'Chatham Average', alluding to a public >>>> perception of a segment of Chatham residents as tracksuit-wearing, >>>> gold hoop-earringed common people with a penchant for hard drinking, >>>> recreational drug use, and aggressive and anti-social behaviour." >>> And if you believe that you really are simple, Simon. >>> If you engaged your brain before posting you would know; >>> "Chav is almost certainly from the Romany word for a child, chavi, recorded >>> from the middle of the nineteenth century". >> Correct. >> >> I heard the word "chav" (a long time before it was ever popularly applied to >> Chatham folk) as a Romany word for "pal", "mate", "workmate", etc. Sometimes >> extenbded to "chavvi" (however spelled). >> >> It wasn't far from Kent that I heard it. > > Wow! That's a powerful word if you can clearly recall where you were > when you first heard it. Not only that, I can remember who first used it in my presence.
From: thirty-six on 16 Dec 2009 19:44 On 16 Dec, 11:43, d...(a)telent.net wrote: > Adrian <toomany2...(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 Use whatever the local council use for highway jacket and helmet to operate their mowers or excavators etc and sit on a springy saddle, bouncing up and down as you approach a junction, this of course only really works at ten minutes to four when everyone finds out these things can travel at 30mph.
From: Peter Grange on 17 Dec 2009 04:32 On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:19:51 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote: >On 16 Dec, 22:53, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:37:36 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >> >> >> >> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >Peter Grange wrote: >> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:44:14 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >> >> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>> Peter Grange wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:39:40 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >> >>>> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>>> Peter Grange wrote: >> >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:54:24 GMT, "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. >> >> >>>>>> 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. >> >> >My opinion is that you are a freeloading, sponging cyclist who will go to >> >any lengths to try & justify not paying his way. >> >> And you're entitled to that too. > >I should hope so, He's right. And you are entitled to hold whatever completely wrong views you wish, too.
From: Louis Genou on 17 Dec 2009 04:51 On 16 Dec, 19:36, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > What crime are you going to accuse me > of next? Sadly being a worthless ignorant snivelling fuckpig in a built-up area during the hours of darkness is not yet against the law, but that may well change after the workers and soldiers have stormed the Westminster Gasworks. -- Louis Genou Poet, Revolutionary, Soldier of Fortune
From: Happi Monday on 17 Dec 2009 05:06
JNugent wrote: >>> >>> It wasn't far from Kent that I heard it. >> >> Wow! That's a powerful word if you can clearly recall where you were >> when you first heard it. > > Not only that, I can remember who first used it in my presence. Why don't you ask Santa for a life for Xmas? |