Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: JNugent on 20 Dec 2009 21:46 Phil W Lee wrote: > "MasonS(a)BP.com" <MasonS(a)BP.com> considered Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:15:27 > -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: > >> On 20 Dec, 12:57, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> >>> What does it say about the Transport Select Committee, then? >> It's as "biased" as Transport 2000, obviously, or whatever mocking >> term you have invented for it in an attempt to make fun of its >> findings that the cost to society caused by motorists including NHS >> costs, pollution, congestion, costs of emergency services, noise >> pollution, reduction of quality of life, reduction in house prices, >> damage to the environment etc etc aren't even met by half of what they >> pay in tax. >> >> The Daily Express of course only cites sources that look at the money >> put into road building and simply subtracts that from the tax take. >> The last ruse was trying to prove a link between oil tankers in the >> Channel "waiting for oil prices to rise" and the price that Colonel >> Blimp pays at the pump. Cue outraged letters to the rag. >> >> I'm surprised you get taken in by it all. > > I'm surprised you are surprised I'm surprised that you're surprised that he's surprised that (he thinks) anything in the Daily Express "takes me in" - because I don't read it and have little idea of what it contains (wasn't it supporting Blair at the last election?). On the other hand, both of you seem to know so much about the Daily Express that you must be regular and avid readers of it. There is no other conclusion to be drawn. > - he's someone who doesn't even seem > to have any proper trade in the building industry, which is hardly the > most intellectually demanding of fields. You are right. I have never worked in the building industry and have certainly never been trained in it - properly or improperly. But what time do you have to be on the site in the morning? You'd better get a move on if you're going to have that tea ready by the time the workers arrive. > Quite frankly, I'd be amazed if he could handle all the long words in > a serious newspaper, much less a scientific paper. Is the Daily Express a scientific paper, then? Perhaps you think it is.
From: MasonS on 21 Dec 2009 11:22 On 20 Dec, 17:33, "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote: > On 20 Dec, 17:21, "The Medway Handyman" > > > > > > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: > > > On 20 Dec, 01:30, "The Medway Handyman" > > > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >> Phil W Lee wrote: > > > >> Or how about this from The Evening Standard :- > > > >> "A City fund manager has been knocked down andkilledin a collision > > >> with a cyclist on his way to work. > > >> Nick Bancroft was a year away from retirement when the accident > > >> happened just yards from his £2 million Holland Park home". > > > > That was more than *two years* ago. > > > Which proves? > > Which proves *how far* you have to go back to find even *one* cyclist > related casualty. > I'd have thousands of innocent peoplekilledby cars since then to > choose from like this one from earlier this month. > "The plank in your own eye" springs to mind yet again. > > http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Pedestrian-killed-as-two-cars.58... More planks in your eye - at least she has been banged up in a mental home. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/21/hit-run-bristol-sentence
From: boltar2003 on 21 Dec 2009 11:30 On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:22:07 -0800 (PST) "MasonS(a)BP.com" <MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote: >More planks in your eye - at least she has been banged up in a mental >home. > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/21/hit-run-bristol-sentence A druggie. Figures. I wonder if the "legalise cannabis - its harmless" brigade will have a comment about this. I somehow suspect not. B2003
From: The Medway Handyman on 21 Dec 2009 13:54 Phil W Lee wrote: > "The Medway Handjob" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> ate alphabeti > spaghetti and vomited: > >> DavidR wrote: >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote >>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote >>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps you could tell us why you object so strongly to a >>>>>>>> perfectly reasonable concept? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Asking the person making the proposals to give their reasoning >>>>>>> first is a strong objection is it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Not at all, but they are so clearly written there is no need to. >>>>> >>>>> The requests are clearly written, true... I still don't see any >>>>> reasoning. >>>> >>>> I would have thought it glaringly obvious; >>> >>> Not at all. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking. >>> >>> <...> >>> >>>> Now it has reasoning. I look forward to your response. >>> >>> You have replied only in the manner of a religious believer. I can >>> accept that you're not a scientist or statistician. Nor am I. But >>> substance is absent. >> >> I've replied in a perfectly logiocal manner. What 'substance' is >> missing? > > Any semblance of fact or basis in the real world. Facts about cyclists ignoring traffic law? >>> Ok, let me suggest that all motor vehicles should have a flashing >>> warning light when going at over 30mph. It's a brilliant idea - and >>> glaringly obvious (to me). Now, you could dive in straight away and >>> say it's stupid. >> >> I certainly will. Its stupid. > > And obviously so - the man with a red flag is a far better idea. >>> >>> Or you could ask about the content of my head. If I then said that >>> driving motor vehicles at over 30mph in built up areas is a safety >>> hazard and this measure "would"(*) increase safety, would you accept >>> that as an answer? >> >> Frankly I wouldn't accept the content of your head to prove anything. >> Certain areas do have 20mph limits, but I wouldn't accept that as an >> answer. I would regard that as evading the issue. >> >>> Well, it's an answer. And it's on a similar level >>> to the one that you gave. But it's not an answer any sensible person >>> should accept for taking the proposal seriously. >> >> I've justified every point. Perhaps you could justify why cyclists >> should not have a licence proving they are competant to ride a bike, >> why cyclists shouldn't have compulsory insurance, why cycles >> shouln't be roadworthy, why cyclists shouldn't wear hi viz vests to >> improve safety, why they shouldn't have a registration number >> displayed so they can be identified? > > Because the vast cost would massively outweigh the minute benefit. Cyclists would be expected to pay for these things, like motorists. > And since that lot doesn't seem to be all that effective in regulating > the operators of motor vehicles, what grounds do you have for > expecting it to be any different for cyclists? Its extreemly effective in regulating motorists. >> Most sensible persons would not find anything unacceptable in those >> entirely reasonable proposals. > > Unless they can do maths. As I said, cyclists would be expected to pay. And thats what you actually object to isn't it? Sticking your hands in your pockets - you bunch of freeloaders. >> >>> So you need to try harder. >> >> I don't think so. I think you should start to explain why cyclists >> consider they should be above the law? > > What law requires all those wish list items? This is alas only a proposal - which should be law. > It seems to me that cyclists are more compliant with the law than > motorists generally are, and pose far less danger to others. Are you having a laugh? That takes the prize for the most utterly stupid thing you have said so far. How often do you see motorists ignoring traffic signals, driving on pavements, driving on the wrong side of the road, driving the wrong way up one way streets? >> I further think you should explain why you have ignored all the >> relevant points raised. > > You haven't raised any relevant points. None so blind as those who will not see. It all makes perfect sense, but you just can't stand the thought that cyclists should be regulated like other users of vehicles on the road and that they might have to pay for using them. Sponging freeloaders to a man. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 21 Dec 2009 14:02
MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 20 Dec, 12:57, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >> What does it say about the Transport Select Committee, then? > > It's as "biased" as Transport 2000, obviously, or whatever mocking > term you have invented for it in an attempt to make fun of its > findings that the cost to society caused by motorists including NHS > costs, pollution, congestion, costs of emergency services, noise > pollution, reduction of quality of life, reduction in house prices, > damage to the environment etc etc aren't even met by half of what they > pay in tax. Oh FFS. How on earth can reduction in house prices be blamed on motorists. Absolute proof the figures are made up bollox. > > The Daily Express of course only cites sources that look at the money > put into road building and simply subtracts that from the tax take. Which is exactly how it should be done if you want an unbiased, un massaged accurate figure. But that wouldn't suit your argument would it? You have to use made up figures including all sorts of rubbish. You really are Simple Simon aren't you? -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist |