From: mileburner on

"The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SIDRm.11223$Ym4.7974(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> 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.

That comment certainly highlights the problems that cyclists face on the
roads.


From: dan on
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> writes:

> dan(a)telent.net gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> keepers of vehicles cannot be a subset of motorists.
>
> Of course they can. Or have you never heard of somebody driving a car of
> which they are not the registered keeper? Hire car, company car, works
> van?

If "keepers of vehicles" are a subset of motorists, all keepers of
vehicles must be motorists

If I am a keeper of a vehicle even when I am not a motorist (e.g. while
being a cyclist) then the set of all keepers of vehicles includes at
least one person (me) who is not at the time a motorist.

Doesn't add up.


-dan
From: Adrian on
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:SIDRm.11223$Ym4.7974(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> The only good cyclist is a dead cyclist.

> That comment certainly highlights the problems that cyclists face on the
> roads.

I find it hilarious that David Lang, the Medway Handyman (http://
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk/) thinks that he's actually doing anything
positive by advertising his business in this manner.
From: mileburner on

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7nph07F3n4836U2(a)mid.individual.net...
> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
>> I am a cyclist and I pay VED.
>
> Not as a cyclist, you don't.
>
>> Is that so hard for a non-cycling motorist to understand?
>
> Do you buy bike bits as a motorist, too?

Clearly it *is* too hard for a non-cycling motorist to understand.

And yes, I do.


From: Peter Grange on
On 3 Dec 2009 07:43:02 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>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.
Oh yes it is.
>
>> 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.

You changed the argument afterwards, not me. There is no qualification
about "as a cyclist" in the original statement.
Am I or am I not a cyclist? Yes I am.
Do I pay VED? Yes I do.