From: JNugent on
Phil W Lee wrote:

> "The Medway Handjob" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered
> Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:04:36 GMT the perfect time to write:

>> I like people to see I'm a clueless idiot with an attitude problem, and
>> I'm not going to let anyone stop me proving it.

> Or words to that effect.

That speaks volumes for the strength (or otherwise) of your "arguments",
doesn't it?
From: Conor on
In article <10nqi5p519308akkrp67qc562a7l1mpdid(a)4ax.com>, Phil W Lee
says...

> > that motorists pay 8 times the costs of providing the
> >roads do you? And you still can't/won't provide the figures you claim
> >disprove that.
>
> Those figures have been explained and the source cited.
> Was it the reading or the arithmetic you had trouble with?
>
Your failure to provide is noted.

> >Exactly how can a gritting lorry miss a cycle lane BTW?
>
> Ask the gritters, but it shouldn't be too difficult to open your eyes
> and note that they do so.

You get full kerb to kerb coverage....


--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: The Medway Handyman on
Phil W Lee wrote:
> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered
> Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:07:59 GMT the perfect time to write:
>
>> Now it has reasoning. I look forward to your response.
>
> No it doesn't.

No what doesn't?

> You clearly wouldn't know reasoning if it came in the form of a 2"x4"
> cluebat.
>
> For any of this to make sense, you'd have to show a need.
> This means quantifying the danger that cyclists pose to others.

So, a cyclist travelling at 30mph is able to stop in a safe distance if a
pedestrian walks into the road?

OK, how about Bournemouth Council having to enforce a cycling speed limit to
protect pedestrians? How about cyclists completely ignoring a ban on riding
through Hyde Park? How about cyclists ignoring one way streets in
Islington? How about so many cyclists ignoring traffic law in London that
the Police admit they can't cope with the volume?

> I look forward to you attempting this (or more likely, claiming that
> it isn't necessary), given that more cyclists are killed by
> pedestrians than the reverse, and the total of both is outweighed by
> several orders of magnitude by the number of victims of motor vehicle
> use.

That more cyclists are killed by pedestrians is simply idiotic - I trust you
can provide evidence to support this ridiculous claim? A pedestrian hit by
a cyclist is going to come off worse, simple schoolboy physics.

That cyclists come off worse when colliding with motor vehicles is obvious -
again simple schoolboy physics - but they cause more accidents because they
frequently ignore traffic law.

Now, instead of posting the standard cyclists mantra, can you refer back to
the original discussion?

That's the bit you snipped in a pathetic attempt to avoid the issue. No
more than I expect form a bike riding fuckwit.

Try answering simple questions instead of trying to avoid issues.


--
Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist





From: The Medway Handyman on
Conor wrote:
> In article <6fa61301-830a-4334-a526-eed018885134
> @l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, MasonS(a)BP.com says...
>
>> That's why our site is building a world scale biodiesel plant - got
>> to keep you going when the oil runs out.
>
> And I wonder how the materials and equipment to build the plant
> arrive....

They will be delivered by byclcle of course...


--
Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist


From: The Medway Handyman on
Phil W Lee wrote:
> "The Medway Handjob" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered
> Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:04:36 GMT the perfect time to write:
>
>> I like people to see I'm a clueless idiot with an attitude problem,
>> and I'm not going to let anyone stop me proving it.
>
> Or words to that effect.

Typical pathetic cyclist attempt to have a go.

I didn't actually say that did I fuckwit?


--
Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist