Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: The Medway Handyman on 2 Dec 2009 19:34 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. The only good cyclist is a dead cyclist. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
From: Peter Grange on 2 Dec 2009 20:11 On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:34:18 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >mileburner wrote: >> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> message news:AVyRm.11057$Ym4.8058(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... >>> mileburner wrote: >>>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:1ja3r1o.u298q3122wbk6N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... >>>>> mileburner <mileburner(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 can't recall doing any of those things myself. >>> >>> That will be caused by the half melon helmet being too tight. >>> >>> I recall seeing all of those things on a regular basis. >> >> So do I, but it does not mean that it is David Lang or Steve Firth >> doing it. > >David Lang & Steve Firth have too much common sense to ride a bike. Oh deep joy. Where does "common sense" come into it? > >Nice try fuckwit, tried to evade the issue & failed completely.
From: Peter Grange on 2 Dec 2009 20:12 On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:34:58 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> 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. > >The only good cyclist is a dead cyclist. Says it all really. Incitement to murder is a crime, you know. -- Pete
From: Adrian on 3 Dec 2009 02:43 Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> 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. Yes, you are. At different times. As am I. I am also a pedestrian. But not at the same time as being either a cyclist or a motorist. My preferences regarding those modes of transport has no impact whatsover on my payment of income tax (business mileage or CtW excepted) or council tax or VAT on items not directly related to those. > I am a cyclist, I am a motorist, I pay VED. But you do not pay VED as a cyclist, and you do not pay VED as a pedestrian. You pay VED as the keeper of a vehicle - a subset of "motorist". > Therefore the statement the prat made that "Cyclists do not pay VED" is > incorrect. No, it is not. > You are qualifying the argument after the event, which is a well-known > usenet ploy. It's difficult to correct you before you're wrong.
From: soup on 3 Dec 2009 03:20
The Medway Handyman wrote: > soup wrote: >> Once again, YOU PAY TO USE THE VEHICLE, NOT FOR THE ROAD. >> You can say you pay for the roads as often as you like it still is >> not true. > Bollox. You can SORN the vehicle if you don't want to use it on the road. > The moment it touches the road you have to have a valid tax disc. I made some statement about 'only' 99.9% of the cases need VED in one of my posts above/below (depending on how your newsreader is setup), SORN/farm vehicles are among the exceptions, so to reiterate. IF YOU USE PUBLIC ROADS YOU NEED TO PAY VED/ROAD TAX TO USE THAT VEHICLE ON PUBLIC ROADS, NOT FOR THE ROADS THEMSELVES. |