Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: NM on 1 Dec 2009 02:50 On 1 Dec, 07:07, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:tuZQm.10409$Ym4.7966(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > > > > > 100% of cyclists are uninsured > > Not true. 3rd part cover is available for about £25 per year. > > & untraceable. > > Not true, they are as identifiable as anyone (unless they are wearing a full > face balaclava or hoodie). How so, please explain.
From: Adrian on 1 Dec 2009 02:57 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Weasel words. I can't use a car or van on the road without a tax disc, >> which I pay for. > Does that logic also apply to drivers of electric vehicles and classic > cars? The first half does. The second half doesn't apply to many conventional new internal-combustion cars either.
From: Adrian on 1 Dec 2009 02:59 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Not true. As a cyclist I pay income tax, council tax, VAT and No, as a resident of the UK you pay those. You pay none of those (apart from a very small amount of VAT) as a cyclist. Unless, of course, you believe the DuhgCredo that somebody can only be a "cyclist" if they eat, sleep, live, breath cycling - and then they are a cyclist to the exclusion of all else. > specifically for cycling, import duty on the components of my all bikes > in addition to the VAT. And how much would you say that was, in the average year?
From: Steve Firth on 1 Dec 2009 04:04 mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > And yet the same individual apears to believe that cycling on the > > pavement, cycling through red lights and cycling at speed in close > > proximity to pedestrians cannot possibly be "dangerous". Yet each of the > > incidents referred to above involves one or more of those activities. > > It seems reasonable to me to class any of the above actions as dangerous. Excellent I look forward to reminding you of that next time you try to excuse cyclists from the consequences of their fuckwittery.
From: Steve Firth on 1 Dec 2009 04:04
mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > According to you the driving was "dangerous". > > Nonsense. If you beleive It's not a matter of belief. We're not discussing theology. > that driving caused the death, then you must accept > that driving the driving was dangerous. Or like you, one can simply choose to tar all drivers as axiomatically "dangerous" without evidence other than "belief". |