Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: johnwright ""john" on 2 Dec 2009 16:53 Keitht wrote: > Squashme wrote: >> On 2 Dec, 16:28, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >>> mileburner <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> Why is it the cyclists who seem to have a complete inability to >>>>> correctly apportion blame? >>>> Possibly because cyclists tend to see safety as more important than >>>> blame. >>> No, cyclists see whining on about safety as important. However they >>> don't have a clue about safety. Otherwise they would not ignore red >>> lights, place their safety above that of pedestrians, and cycle down the >>> blind sides of large vehicles. >>> >>> I'll take your pronouncements about safety seriously the day that >>> cyclists place safety above their own convenience. >> >> I certainly find being dead rather inconvenient. > > Unless it's for tax purposes. > > You are Hotblack Desiato AICMFP Otherwise known as the famous estate agency in Camden or thereabouts. I wonder if they're still going and have a website... -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright
From: Peter Grange on 2 Dec 2009 16:55 On 2 Dec 2009 21:34:53 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >like they were saying: > >>>>>Every normal person (which clearly excludes cyclists) knows what road >>>>>tax is and that you have to pay it to use the roads. Cyclists don't >>>>>pay it. > >>>> I'm a cyclist and I pay it. Discuss. > >>>There's nothing to discuss. >>> >>>You don't pay VED in your capacity as a cyclist. Simple. End of. You pay >>>it in your capacity as the keeper of a motor vehicle. >>> >>>The only way in which you can possibly construe otherwise is to assume >>>that "cyclist" is somehow pervasive and inherent to your every action, >>>which is clearly complete and utter bollocks. > >> Read what the prat said. "Cyclists don't pay it". I'm a cyclist. I pay >> it. > >Read what I said. You don't pay it _as a cyclist_. Unless, of course, you >think you're a cyclist whilst you drive your car, brush your teeth, do >the washing up? What you said is immaterial, I was replying to what the prat said. He said cyclists don't pay VED. I'm a cyclist, I pay VED. Therefore he is wrong, as he is almost every time, as are most of the "cyclists are a different tribe from motorists" brigade. -- Pete
From: Adrian on 2 Dec 2009 17:29 Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Read what the prat said. "Cyclists don't pay it". I'm a cyclist. I pay >>> it. >>Read what I said. You don't pay it _as a cyclist_. Unless, of course, >>you think you're a cyclist whilst you drive your car, brush your teeth, >>do the washing up? > What you said is immaterial No, it's both material and very relevant. > I was replying to what the prat said. He said cyclists don't pay VED. > I'm a cyclist, I pay VED. <slowly> Not. As. A. Cyclist. You. Don't. > Therefore he is wrong, as he is almost every time, as are most of the > "cyclists are a different tribe from motorists" brigade. And yet you are actively trying to perpetuate precisely that misconception by refusing to recognise that the minute you get off your bike you are no longer a cyclist, but a pedestrian. Do you pay VED as a pedestrian? No. You pay it as a vehicle keeper, and a vehicle keeper alone.
From: SW on 2 Dec 2009 17:42 On 2 Dec, 21:50, johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote: > > You pay to use the vehicle on the public road. Exactly. Use of the road itself is completely free. SW
From: SW on 2 Dec 2009 17:56
On 2 Dec, 08:11, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote: > However cycles will never become anything more than personal > transport for the enthusiast, the poor and the disqualified, as > mainstream transport they are unsuitable on so many levels. > Too late, it's already happened. SW |