From: mileburner on 3 Dec 2009 05:14
"The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> 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
>>> 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
From: dan on 3 Dec 2009 05:17
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
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.
From: Adrian on 3 Dec 2009 05:20
"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
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 3 Dec 2009 05:31
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> "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 3 Dec 2009 05:37
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.
>>>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
>> 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
>> Therefore the statement the prat made that "Cyclists do not pay VED" is
>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.