From: johnwright ""john" on
mileburner wrote:
> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)> wrote in message
> news:7n9vj9F3l653pU17(a)
>> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much
>> like they were saying:
>>> In relation to "Road Tax" The cyclist may have already paid it for the
>>> years when he ran a car (In fact they may still run a car but is using a
>>> bicycle by choice). So why should they not get priority over younger
>>> drivers?
>> So, by extension, I should be able to use a car from hereon in without
>> renewing my VED, because I've paid in the past?
>>> Bizarre isn't it?
>> Your logic certainly is.
> Exactly!
> You pay VED to allow you to put a vehicle on public roads for the duration
> of the licence. The roads are available to all to use.

Though the rate of VED you pay depends on your own status and the type
of vehicle.

> You pay NI contributions according to your earned income. NHS healthcare is
> available to all.

True enough.


I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore

?John Wright

From: NM on
On 28 Nov, 09:54, johnwright <""john\"@no spam"> wrote:
> johnwright > wrote:
> > NM wrote:
> >> On 27 Nov, 09:35, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)> wrote:
> >>> NM wrote:
> >>>> On 27 Nov, 00:31, Paul Weaver <use...(a)> wrote:
> >>>>> On 26 Nov, 18:25, johnwright <""john\"@no spam"> wrote:
> >>>>>> Doesn't make it legal. They probably are not enlightened just
> >>>>>> trying to avoid filling in the reams of paperwork they would need
> >>>>>> to if they stop a cyclist for any offence.
> >>>>> Or indeed stop anyone for any offence. I've certainly been let off
> >>>>> with warnings while driving plenty of times.
> >>>>> Having said that, I have delightedly seen cyclists given FPNs for
> >>>>> pavement cycling in London :)
> >>>> Good, more of that is required.
> >>> I agree, if you force them onto the roads, it will slow down the
> >>> traffic and
> >>> make it safer for everyone.
> >> And the attrition rate amoungst cyclists will increase.
> > Perhaps that's why more women cyclists get killed. Women as a cohort
> > tend to be more compliant than men.
> I see no one has taken this particular point on so I feel the need to
> expand on it a little. Years ago I was a gliding instructor and did
> around 4-500 trial lessons as they call them. In this the "pupil" sits
> in the front and the instructor sits in the back. You can talk but not
> interact in any other way. This is unscientific in the sense that no one
> planned it, but almost without exception if the passenger was a young
> woman I could persuade her to land the glider on her very first flight
> simply by telling her what to do. This never ever happened with a young
> man, since they were not inclined to be compliant.
> --
> I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore
> ?John Wright

When I was taking my PPL instruction the best instructors were women
who without exception let you make mistakes then showed you what you
did wrong whereas the 'men' (usually mere boys trying to get some
instruction hours under their belt towards their CPL) would delight in
showing you how much better they could do it than you.

When I did taildragger the pilot insisted on yelling 'I have control'
during the crucial last couple of feet before the deck whereas the
lady just let me hit the ground and bounce a couple of time, later
calmly discussing my errors, result I took to it like a duck to water,
the difference being she didn't have to prove anything and her
dominance/manhood was not an issue.
From: Keitht on
Adrian wrote:
> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>> You pay VED
> on a vehicle
>> to allow you to put
> that specific
>> vehicle on public roads for the duration of the licence.
> I've corrected the misunderstandings in your post.

You forgot the other bits of paper that go along with the round bit of
paper. They all need to be in order.

"I've corrected the misunderstandings in your post."

Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
From: Peter Grange on
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:07:04 +0000, (Steve Firth)

>Peter Grange <peter(a)> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:25:03 +0000, (Steve Firth)
>> wrote:
>> >Peter Grange <peter(a)> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Here's something you could try to test the theory. Stop the next
>> >> >pavement cyclist that you see and ask them to ride where they belong.
>> >>
>> >> Try telling the next motorist parked on the pavement to get his
>> >> hulking great car off the pavement and on the street where it belongs.
>> >
>> >When I see a driver driving down the pavement at 25mph I shall tell them
>> >off.
>> Good luck with stopping him.
>I'd rate my chances as being about as good as those of stopping a
Ah, but then you may find yourself drawn into the "relative amount of
damage" argument.

BTW, I meant to comment last time, 25 mph is pretty impressive for a
cyclist on the pavement, it's not bad on the road.

Oh, and I must be honest, I saw another pavement cyclist when I went
for the newspaper this morning. Probably the same one as last time,
lad about 12.


From: Keitht on
Steve Firth wrote:
> johnwright <""john\"@no spam"> wrote:
>>> There are also "Give Way" markings for cyclists which are use whenever
>>> the cycle lane crosses the pavement. Would you like to guess how many
>>> cyclists obey those markings?
>> None?
> Give the man a cee-gar.
> They don't even give way to the trucks that are turning into the
> industrial estate. Despite there being several large signs telling
> cyclists to stop and look for traffic before crossing the entrance.
> Note, it says "Stop", not "Give Way". They don't stop.
> Apparently if a cyclist were to stop in London for a red light or a stop
> sign their testicles would drop off.

That would be the same reason a set of lights was installed at a minor
crossroads near me -- drivers never seemed to understand 'give way' and
managed to run in to each other constantly.
Now they just run the red lights as if they didn't exist and still smash
in to each other.

Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle