Motorists above the law.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Bridge 1:0 Bus
Next: Ford Fiesta Auto Wipe
From: MasonS on 14 Dec 2009 12:16 On 14 Dec, 16:59, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Simon Mason" <si...(a)simonmason.karoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: > > >> A person who is cycling emits more CO2 than someone who is using a bus. > >> So why are cyclists free to emit excessive levels of greenhouse gases? > > Wrong again. I eat the same whether I cycle or not. All that happens is > > that I gain weight which means more fossil fuels will be needed to shift > > my ever increasing bulk on the odd occasion I drive my car. > > Has the thought of eating less to compensate for less exercise not > crossed your mind? The only time I don't cycle is when I am on holiday, so that is my only experience and I put on about 6lbs in weight which takes about 2 months to get rid of. The cobblers about extra CO2 breathing cyclists is so laughable that one imagines bus loads of people who happen not to eat and breathe at all. Conor, like Medway Man, who can't grasp non drivers paying vastly more in taxes than him, can't imagine marathon runners who happen to use the bus who spend their weekends running around the country expelling "excess CO2", or the 1000's of amateur footballers breathing out "unneeded CO2" or anyone else doing anything which might raise their heart rate above resting rate. In reality of course, his lauded bus passengers and drivers who never get their heart rate up past resting are the biggest cost to the NHS, as they are the very ones who are likely to be obese and end up with all sorts of diseases that we have to pay to treat as they are too bone idle to take care of themselves. Telling them that the "extra CO2" they breathe out during exercise will damage the environment is beyond parody. -- Simon Mason
From: Adrian on 14 Dec 2009 12:26 "MasonS(a)BP.com" <MasonS(a)BP.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >> A person who is cycling emits more CO2 than someone who is using a >> >> bus. So why are cyclists free to emit excessive levels of greenhouse >> >> gases? >> > Wrong again. I eat the same whether I cycle or not. All that happens >> > is that I gain weight which means more fossil fuels will be needed to >> > shift my ever increasing bulk on the odd occasion I drive my car. >> Has the thought of eating less to compensate for less exercise not >> crossed your mind? > The only time I don't cycle is when I am on holiday, so that is my only > experience and I put on about 6lbs in weight which takes about 2 months > to get rid of. That'll be a "No", then.
From: Simon Mason on 14 Dec 2009 13:05 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7onaqdF3qldbbU31(a)mid.individual.net... > >>> Has the thought of eating less to compensate for less exercise not >>> crossed your mind? > >> The only time I don't cycle is when I am on holiday, so that is my only >> experience and I put on about 6lbs in weight which takes about 2 months >> to get rid of. > > That'll be a "No", then. Not on holiday, no. -- Simon Mason http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
From: Tony Dragon on 14 Dec 2009 13:33 Doug wrote: > On 14 Dec, 08:57, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >>> On 14 Dec, 08:06, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On Dec 14, 8:02 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> OT rant >> >>>> One has to ask why this question is directed at a cycling NG. >>> Because of a multiplicity of 'Cyclists above the law' threads >>> deliberately cross-posted from motorist NGs. I am merely trying to >>> restore some sense of balance. I hope you are not trying to censor me? >> >> So you posted it as a form of revenge, how strange, >> > No an attempt at balance. Though you will notice I only posted ONE > thread not a MULTIPLICITY of threads, all with the same title, like > your abusive, cross-posting motorist chums. 1 You are always starting threads such as this. 2 How do you accidentally cross post? 3 The first address was urc so the rest were a cross post 4 How do you know they are my chums? >> How was he going to censor you, cut your internet link? >> > By calling on his motorist chums here to flood my thread with abusive > off-topic messages in an attempt to render it virtually useless. > > -- > UK Radical Campaigns > www.zing.icom43.net > One man's newsgroup is another man's censorship. > I saw no request to flood the thread. If you do not like replies, do not post. -- Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on 14 Dec 2009 13:33
Doug wrote: > On 14 Dec, 10:43, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> In article <e5be0338-24bc-4a99-9330-142d662bacd0@ >> 21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Doug says... >> >> >> >>> The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air >>> pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by >>> buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit >>> several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening, >>> and get away with it. >>> One has to ask why the EU is ignoring those other harmful pollutants >>> in favour of motorists, who are 80% of all road transport? >> That would be true if it weren't for the slightly inconvenient fact that >> cars have to have catalytic convertors and very tight emissions test. >> > Yes but they are only tested once a year and in the meantime can > pollute as much as they like as long as there is no visible smoke. > > -- > UK Radical Campaigns > www.zing.icom43.net > "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience". > > How often would you like a test to be done? -- Tony Dragon |