Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: mileburner on 3 Dec 2009 05:14 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:SIDRm.11223$Ym4.7974(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > Squashme wrote: >> On 2 Dec, 16:28, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >>> mileburner <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> Why is it the cyclists who seem to have a complete inability to >>>>> correctly apportion blame? >>> >>>> Possibly because cyclists tend to see safety as more important than >>>> blame. >>> >>> No, cyclists see whining on about safety as important. However they >>> don't have a clue about safety. Otherwise they would not ignore red >>> lights, place their safety above that of pedestrians, and cycle down >>> the blind sides of large vehicles. >>> >>> I'll take your pronouncements about safety seriously the day that >>> cyclists place safety above their own convenience. >> >> I certainly find being dead rather inconvenient. > > The only good cyclist is a dead cyclist. That comment certainly highlights the problems that cyclists face on the roads.
From: dan on 3 Dec 2009 05:17 Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> writes: > dan(a)telent.net gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >> keepers of vehicles cannot be a subset of motorists. > > Of course they can. Or have you never heard of somebody driving a car of > which they are not the registered keeper? Hire car, company car, works > van? If "keepers of vehicles" are a subset of motorists, all keepers of vehicles must be motorists If I am a keeper of a vehicle even when I am not a motorist (e.g. while being a cyclist) then the set of all keepers of vehicles includes at least one person (me) who is not at the time a motorist. Doesn't add up. -dan
From: Adrian on 3 Dec 2009 05:20 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > message news:SIDRm.11223$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 > 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 3 Dec 2009 05:31 "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 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. > >>><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. |