Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: DavidR on 2 Dec 2009 18:23 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote > DavidR wrote: >>> [DavidR} >>>>>>>> Does it? I have a bus stop outside my house with a half hourly 2.5 >>>>>>>> mile > >>> [JN] >>>>>>> If you live only 2.5m from town, that's urban. You'd call Speke (SE >>>>>>> Liverpool) or Wythenshawe (S Manchester) urban, and each is seven > > You did notice that everything was predicated on what you had said? That's > why it started with an if. The "if" only prefaced the 2.5 miles - as though there was some magic number where an(y) urban boundary stops.
From: The Medway Handyman on 2 Dec 2009 18:55 SW wrote: > 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. Only for lycra clad tree hugging twats. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
From: Peter Grange on 2 Dec 2009 19:02 On 2 Dec 2009 22:29:05 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. People like the prat like to try to separate cyclists from motorists in order to perpetuate their "us against them" war. I am a motorist and a cyclist. I know that is difficult for them to understand, but it is true nevertheless. I am a cyclist, I am a motorist, I pay VED. Therefore the statement the prat made that "Cyclists do not pay VED" is incorrect. You are qualifying the argument after the event, which is a well-known usenet ploy. The prat made an incorrect statement. If you wish to dispute that, please do so on the basis of his words, not on your subsequent modifications. -- Pete
From: Peter Grange on 2 Dec 2009 19:03 On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:55:04 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >SW wrote: >> 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. > >Only for lycra clad tree hugging twats. Bollocks.
From: The Medway Handyman on 2 Dec 2009 19:07
Peter Grange wrote: > 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. Cyclists are a different race from normal humans thats for sure. Lets try this again, in terms you can't wriggle out of. Motorists have to pay a SPECIFIC fee to use a motor vehicle on the roads. Call it VED if you wish, normal humans understand it to be road tax. Which SPECIFIC fee to cyclists pay to use the roads. Remember SPECIFIC. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |