Yet another place where cyclists are causing problems. [Archive]

PeterG

July 6th 10, 04:45 PM

On Jul 6, 4:38*pm, David Hansen >
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:53:50 +0100 someone who may be "David"
> > wrote this:-
>
> >>http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid....
>
> >Sorry? *Did I miss something? *In what way were they causing problems?
>
> An interesting quote from the article is:
>
> "Last month during Avon and Somerset police's Relentless day of
> action in Bath, officers stopped 17 cyclists in just one morning who
> were riding on the pavements or flouting one-way restrictions."
>
> Now it says officers, so let's say there were two and a morning is
> three hours.
>
> That means each office stopped say 9 cyclists each,to make the maths
> easier. Three an hour, or one every 20 minutes.
>
> A hotbed of crime? A useful use of expensively trained public
> servants? I don't think so.
>
> --
> * David Hansen, Edinburgh
> *I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> *http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Perhaps they should stop looking for other crimes then, if it's a
numbers thing.

David[_11_]

July 6th 10, 04:54 PM

"PeterG" > wrote in message
...
> Are you saying that complaints do not indicate a problem?

People will complain about anything.

I'm not condoning the breaking of the law, but what specific problems were
the cyclist causing? The details appear to be lacking somewhat.

Mrcheerful[_2_]

July 6th 10, 05:15 PM

PeterG wrote:
> On Jul 6, 4:38 pm, David Hansen >
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:53:50 +0100 someone who may be "David"
>> > wrote this:-
>>
>>>> http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid...
>>
>>> Sorry? Did I miss something? In what way were they causing problems?
>>
>> An interesting quote from the article is:
>>
>> "Last month during Avon and Somerset police's Relentless day of
>> action in Bath, officers stopped 17 cyclists in just one morning who
>> were riding on the pavements or flouting one-way restrictions."
>>
>> Now it says officers, so let's say there were two and a morning is
>> three hours.
>>
>> That means each office stopped say 9 cyclists each,to make the maths
>> easier. Three an hour, or one every 20 minutes.
>>
>> A hotbed of crime? A useful use of expensively trained public
>> servants? I don't think so.
>>
>> --
>> David Hansen, Edinburgh
>> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents
>> me
>> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54
>
> Perhaps they should stop looking for other crimes then, if it's a
> numbers thing.

I suppose there is definitely no point in the police looking for murderers,
after all there are not many of them.

Squashme

July 6th 10, 05:17 PM

On 6 July, 16:39, PeterG > wrote:
> On Jul 6, 4:15*pm, "David" > wrote:
>
> > "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > >> Sorry? *Did I miss something? *In what way were they causing problems?
> > >> Breaking the law, yes, but causing problems?
>
> > > Quote "Riding on the pavement is one of the most common complaints we
> > > receive from the public"
>
> > > Complaints have been received, therefore there must have been problems.
>
> > LOL, no Mr.Dragon, that is not the case, although beautifully naïve.
> > :o)
>
> Are you saying that complaints do not indicate a problem?

They may indicate a problem, but it may be a different problem than
the stated one. It may be with the complainant.

Doug[_10_]

July 6th 10, 06:02 PM

On 6 July, 15:48, PeterG > wrote:
> http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid...
>
And its time they also did something about pavement motorists who
think they can leave their cars lying about anywhere, damaging paving
slabs and regardless of the nuisance and danger it causes pedestrians.
Some have even been known to drive ALONG pavements to escape traffic
jams or to get to an empty space to park. Of course, cars are much
more dangerous than bicycles anyway.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Paul - xxx[_2_]

July 6th 10, 06:07 PM

On 06/07/2010 15:53, David wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=20891&t=1&lid=3
>
> Sorry? Did I miss something? In what way were they causing problems?
> Breaking the law, yes, but causing problems?

"City centre beat manager Sgt Richard Durnford, pictured talking to a
cyclist in Southgate, said: "Riding on the pavement is one of the most
common complaints we receive from the public. It's anti-social, selfish
and potentially dangerous and we're determined to do something to stop it."

It's a problem for some people.

Not for me, but ... ;)

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

Tony Dragon

July 6th 10, 06:26 PM

Doug wrote:
> On 6 July, 15:48, PeterG > wrote:
>> http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid...
>>
> And its time they also did something about pavement motorists who
> think they can leave their cars lying about anywhere, damaging paving
> slabs and regardless of the nuisance and danger it causes pedestrians.
> Some have even been known to drive ALONG pavements to escape traffic
> jams or to get to an empty space to park. Of course, cars are much
> more dangerous than bicycles anyway.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

So because some motorists might do that, it is ok for cyclists to do
what is reported in the link posted?

--
Tony Dragon

July 6th 10, 06:55 PM

"PeterG" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=20891&t=1&lid=3

I don't have a problem with that.

JNugent[_7_]

July 6th 10, 06:56 PM

David wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Sorry? Did I miss something? In what way were they causing problems?
>>> Breaking the law, yes, but causing problems?
>> Quote "Riding on the pavement is one of the most common complaints we
>> receive from the public"
>>
>> Complaints have been received, therefore there must have been problems.
>>
>
> LOL, no Mr.Dragon, that is not the case, although beautifully naïve.
> :o)

People don't report lawbreaking because they think it's perfectly fine.

Well, not in the real world.

JNugent[_7_]

July 6th 10, 06:58 PM

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:53:50 +0100 someone who may be "David"
> > wrote this:-
>
>>> http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=20891&t=1&lid=3
>> Sorry? Did I miss something? In what way were they causing problems?
>
> An interesting quote from the article is:
>
> "Last month during Avon and Somerset police's Relentless day of
> action in Bath, officers stopped 17 cyclists in just one morning who
> were riding on the pavements or flouting one-way restrictions."
>
> Now it says officers, so let's say there were two and a morning is
> three hours.
>
> That means each office stopped say 9 cyclists each,to make the maths
> easier. Three an hour, or one every 20 minutes.
>
> A hotbed of crime? A useful use of expensively trained public
> servants? I don't think so.

Is that all they did on that morning?

Do you know?

Do you even care, as long as you can get one of your increasingly-bizarre
anti-police rants in?

JNugent[_7_]

July 6th 10, 06:59 PM

David wrote:
> "PeterG" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Are you saying that complaints do not indicate a problem?
>
> People will complain about anything.
>
> I'm not condoning the breaking of the law, but what specific problems were
> the cyclist causing?

Breaking the law and threatening the safety and security of pedestrians?

> The details appear to be lacking somewhat.

Breaking the law and threatening the safety and wellbeing of pedestrians.

Is that not enough?

JNugent[_7_]

July 6th 10, 07:00 PM

Squashme wrote:
> On 6 July, 16:39, PeterG > wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 4:15 pm, "David" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> Sorry? Did I miss something? In what way were they causing problems?
>>>>> Breaking the law, yes, but causing problems?
>>>> Quote "Riding on the pavement is one of the most common complaints we
>>>> receive from the public"
>>>> Complaints have been received, therefore there must have been problems.
>>> LOL, no Mr.Dragon, that is not the case, although beautifully naïve.
>>> :o)
>> Are you saying that complaints do not indicate a problem?
>
> They may indicate a problem, but it may be a different problem than
> the stated one. It may be with the complainant.

It can safely be assumed that victims don't report offences because they are
happy with them happening.

OTOH, perps frequently try the "get a life" tactic when their behaviour is
criticised. It happens here a lot.

Tony Dragon

July 6th 10, 07:38 PM

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:53:50 +0100 someone who may be "David"
> > wrote this:-
>
>>> http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=20891&t=1&lid=3
>> Sorry? Did I miss something? In what way were they causing problems?
>
> An interesting quote from the article is:
>
> "Last month during Avon and Somerset police's Relentless day of
> action in Bath, officers stopped 17 cyclists in just one morning who
> were riding on the pavements or flouting one-way restrictions."
>
> Now it says officers, so let's say there were two and a morning is
> three hours.
>
> That means each office stopped say 9 cyclists each,to make the maths
> easier. Three an hour, or one every 20 minutes.
>
> A hotbed of crime? A useful use of expensively trained public
> servants? I don't think so.
>
>
>

So that's ok then, lets not go after offenders because they are not big
offenders.
Typical of your answers.

--
Tony Dragon

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 6th 10, 08:29 PM

David wrote:
> "PeterG" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=20891&t=1&lid=3
>
> Sorry? Did I miss something? In what way were they causing problems?
> Breaking the law, yes, but causing problems?

"City centre beat manager Sgt Richard Durnford, pictured talking to a
cyclist in Southgate, said: "Riding on the pavement is one of the most
common complaints we receive from the public. It's anti-social, selfish and
potentially dangerous and we're determined to do something to stop it."

Which bit of anti social & potentially dangerous isn't a problem?

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 6th 10, 08:34 PM

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:53:50 +0100 someone who may be "David"
> > wrote this:-
>
>>> http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=20891&t=1&lid=3
>>
>> Sorry? Did I miss something? In what way were they causing
>> problems?
>
> An interesting quote from the article is:
>
> "Last month during Avon and Somerset police's Relentless day of
> action in Bath, officers stopped 17 cyclists in just one morning who
> were riding on the pavements or flouting one-way restrictions."
>
> Now it says officers, so let's say there were two and a morning is
> three hours.
>
> That means each office stopped say 9 cyclists each,to make the maths
> easier. Three an hour, or one every 20 minutes.
>
> A hotbed of crime? A useful use of expensively trained public
> servants? I don't think so.

17 flagrant & regular law breakers aprehended - good result.

How would you react to a motorist who complained about being booked for a
minor offence & used the comment "the police should be arresting burglars"?

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

Doug[_10_]

July 7th 10, 07:33 AM

On 6 July, 18:26, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 6 July, 15:48, PeterG > wrote:
> >>http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid...
>
> > And its time they also did something about pavement motorists who
> > think they can leave their cars lying about anywhere, damaging paving
> > slabs and regardless of the nuisance and danger it causes pedestrians.
> > Some have even been known to drive ALONG pavements to escape traffic
> > jams or to get to an empty space to park. Of course, cars are much
> > more dangerous than bicycles anyway.
>

>
> So because some motorists might do that, it is ok for cyclists to do
> what is reported in the link posted?
>
No because the report was from a motorist here who lacks a cyclist's
perspective, as usual.

> > -- .
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> >http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Tony Dragon

July 7th 10, 05:39 PM

Doug wrote:
> On 6 July, 18:26, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 6 July, 15:48, PeterG > wrote:
>>>> http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid...
>>> And its time they also did something about pavement motorists who
>>> think they can leave their cars lying about anywhere, damaging paving
>>> slabs and regardless of the nuisance and danger it causes pedestrians.
>>> Some have even been known to drive ALONG pavements to escape traffic
>>> jams or to get to an empty space to park. Of course, cars are much
>>> more dangerous than bicycles anyway.
>
>> So because some motorists might do that, it is ok for cyclists to do
>> what is reported in the link posted?
>>
> No because the report was from a motorist here who lacks a cyclist's
> perspective, as usual.
>
>>> -- .
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

The report was from the police.

--
Tony Dragon

Doug[_10_]

July 8th 10, 08:12 AM

On 7 July, 17:39, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 6 July, 18:26, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 6 July, 15:48, PeterG > wrote:
> >>>>http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid...
> >>> And its time they also did something about pavement motorists who
> >>> think they can leave their cars lying about anywhere, damaging paving
> >>> slabs and regardless of the nuisance and danger it causes pedestrians.
> >>> Some have even been known to drive ALONG pavements to escape traffic
> >>> jams or to get to an empty space to park. Of course, cars are much
> >>> more dangerous than bicycles anyway.
>
> >> So because some motorists might do that, it is ok for cyclists to do
> >> what is reported in the link posted?
>
> > No because the report was from a motorist here who lacks a cyclist's
> > perspective, as usual.
>

>
> The report was from the police.
>
OK, the thread was from a motorist. Satisfied?

> >>> -- .
> >>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Derek C

July 8th 10, 08:32 AM

On Jul 8, 8:12*am, Doug > wrote:

>
> > >> So because some motorists might do that, it is ok for cyclists to do
> > >> what is reported in the link posted?
>
> > > No because the report was from a motorist here who lacks a cyclist's
> > > perspective, as usual.
>
> > The report was from the police.
>
> OK, the thread was from a motorist. Satisfied?
>
>
I don't remember cyclist behaviour being a problem in the 1950s, when
many more people cycled, not least because cars were expensive and in
short supply. Unfortunately a culture seemed to have evolved that
cyclists are above the law and can do what they like, including
deliberately riding through red traffic lights, riding at speed on the
footpath, riding the wrong way down one-way streets, not carrying
lights at night, etc, etc. These activities are dangerous and anti-
social. It is right that the Police should crack down on them.

Derek C

A bicycle is an unlicenced weapon to kill

Derek C

July 8th 10, 08:32 AM

Squashme

July 8th 10, 10:14 AM

On 8 July, 08:32, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:12*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > >> So because some motorists might do that, it is ok for cyclists to do
> > > >> what is reported in the link posted?
>
> > > > No because the report was from a motorist here who lacks a cyclist's
> > > > perspective, as usual.
>
> > > The report was from the police.
>
> > OK, the thread was from a motorist. Satisfied?
>
> I don't remember cyclist behaviour being a problem in the 1950s, when
> many more people cycled, not least because cars were expensive and in
> short supply.

So where did this come from then?:-
“causing bodily harm by wanton or furious cycling under the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861"

You might wish to note that cyclists have become more of a problem
with the overwhelming growth of motor vehicles and their demand for
road space.

Roll on gridlock.

"The RAC Foundation has called for Britain's major roads to be
privatised and for drivers to pay tolls to use them, as a way of
tackling growing risk of gridlock on Britain's already congested road
network."

>Unfortunately a culture seemed to have evolved that
> cyclists are above the law and can do what they like, including
> deliberately riding through red traffic lights, riding at speed on the
> footpath, riding the wrong way down one-way streets, not carrying
> lights at night, etc, etc. These activities are dangerous and anti-
> social. It is right that the Police should crack down on them.
>
> Derek C
>
> A bicycle is an unlicenced weapon to kill

So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.

mileburner

July 8th 10, 10:57 AM

Squashme wrote:
>
> You might wish to note that cyclists have become more of a problem
> with the overwhelming growth of motor vehicles and their demand for
> road space.

It is also worth noting that cyclists are often seen as "the problem" when
the road space needs to be shared due to increased traffic.

First, when drivers overtake and there is no oncoming traffic, most of the
time (and most of the drivers) will pass wide and clear. But when there is
oncoming traffic, they will typically pass closer, and when there is not
enough space to pass at all, they will feel that the cyclist is in their
way. They do not automatically realise that it is the oncoming traffic which
is actually preventing them from passing safely.

Second, as traffic chugs at a typically very low speed through urban areas
at peak times (making an average speed of possibly only 10 to 12 mph) if it
is cyclists "in the way" and holding the traffic up they are often seen as
"the problem" (whereas if it were another car or larger vehicle it would
just be seen as slow heavy traffic). While few cyclists (old ladies and
kids) might ride at slower speeds, most other cyclists would find it rather
tedious to ride at this very low speed.

ISTM that cyclists are not the problem. Heavy traffic is the problem.
Therefore drivers ought to be thankful that cyclists are not driving cars
and adding to the problem.

Derek C

July 8th 10, 11:00 AM

On Jul 8, 10:14*am, Squashme > wrote:

>
> So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.

No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?

Derek C

Tony Dragon

July 8th 10, 06:30 PM

Doug wrote:
> On 7 July, 17:39, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 6 July, 18:26, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 6 July, 15:48, PeterG > wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid...
>>>>> And its time they also did something about pavement motorists who
>>>>> think they can leave their cars lying about anywhere, damaging paving
>>>>> slabs and regardless of the nuisance and danger it causes pedestrians.
>>>>> Some have even been known to drive ALONG pavements to escape traffic
>>>>> jams or to get to an empty space to park. Of course, cars are much
>>>>> more dangerous than bicycles anyway.
>>>> So because some motorists might do that, it is ok for cyclists to do
>>>> what is reported in the link posted?
>>> No because the report was from a motorist here who lacks a cyclist's
>>> perspective, as usual.
>
>> The report was from the police.
>>
> OK, the thread was from a motorist. Satisfied?
>
>>>>> -- .
>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>

No

--
Tony Dragon

Squashme

July 8th 10, 07:38 PM

On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jul 8, 10:14*am, Squashme > wrote:
>
>
>
> > So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>
> No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
> need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
> the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>

I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other people's
lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit seems rather
selfish. It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
demon helmet-dodging cyclists.

Derek C

July 8th 10, 09:42 PM

On Jul 8, 7:38*pm, Squashme > wrote:
> On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 10:14*am, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > > So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>
> > No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
> > need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
> > the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>
> I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
> unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other people's
> lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit seems rather
> selfish. It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
> vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
> demon helmet-dodging cyclists.

As Doug keeps telling us that a driving licence is a licence to kill,
I am just retaliating to this unjustified slur on motorists'
characters!

Derek C

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 8th 10, 10:44 PM

Squashme wrote:
> On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 10:14 am, Squashme > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>>
>> No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
>> need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
>> the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>>
>
> I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
> unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other people's
> lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit seems rather
> selfish.

Quite right.

>It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
> vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
> demon helmet-dodging cyclists.

At last you are developing some common sense.

Now, repeat after me "Road Tax, Road Tax, Road Tax".

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

webreader

July 8th 10, 11:05 PM

On Jul 8, 8:12*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 7 July, 17:39, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 6 July, 18:26, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> > >> Doug wrote:
> > >>> On 6 July, 15:48, PeterG > wrote:
> > >>>>http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid...
> > >>> And its time they also did something about pavement motorists who
> > >>> think they can leave their cars lying about anywhere, damaging paving
> > >>> slabs and regardless of the nuisance and danger it causes pedestrians.
> > >>> Some have even been known to drive ALONG pavements to escape traffic
> > >>> jams or to get to an empty space to park. Of course, cars are much
> > >>> more dangerous than bicycles anyway.
>
> > >> So because some motorists might do that, it is ok for cyclists to do
> > >> what is reported in the link posted?
>
> > > No because the report was from a motorist here who lacks a cyclist's
> > > perspective, as usual.
>
> > The report was from the police.
>
> OK, the thread was from a motorist. Satisfied?
>
> > >>> -- .
> > >>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> > >>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > >>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

But the report came from the police and the link was posted by a user
of this NG & it was in the UK & about cyclists.
That makes it on topic, unlike your post about petrol prices, but you
want to dismiss it because it does not fit in with your blinkered
ideas, well bad luck, perhaps one of your idiot budies will be along
soon to post some dribble to back you up.

Squashme

July 8th 10, 11:16 PM

On 8 July, 22:44, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
> >> On Jul 8, 10:14 am, Squashme > wrote:
>
> >>> So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>
> >> No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
> >> need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
> >> the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>
> > I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
> > unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other people's
> > lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit seems rather
> > selfish.
>
> Quite right.
>
> >It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
> > vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
> > demon helmet-dodging cyclists.
>
> At last you are developing some common sense.
>
> Now, repeat after me "Road Tax, Road Tax, Road Tax".

OK

Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road
Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase
Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax ...

Squashme

July 8th 10, 11:19 PM

On 8 July, 21:42, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jul 8, 7:38*pm, Squashme > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 10:14*am, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > > > So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>
> > > No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
> > > need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
> > > the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>
> > I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
> > unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other people's
> > lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit seems rather
> > selfish. It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
> > vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
> > demon helmet-dodging cyclists.
>
> As Doug keeps telling us that a driving licence is a licence to kill,
> I am just retaliating to this unjustified slur on motorists'
> characters!
>

But you have no objection to unjustified generalised slurs about
cyclists. Strange, a self-hating cyclist.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 9th 10, 01:08 AM

Squashme wrote:
> On 8 July, 22:44, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 8, 10:14 am, Squashme > wrote:
>>
>>>>> So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>>
>>>> No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
>>>> need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
>>>> the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>>
>>> I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
>>> unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other people's
>>> lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit seems rather
>>> selfish.
>>
>> Quite right.
>>
>>> It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
>>> vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
>>> demon helmet-dodging cyclists.
>>
>> At last you are developing some common sense.
>>
>> Now, repeat after me "Road Tax, Road Tax, Road Tax".
>
> OK
>
> Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road
> Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase
> Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax ...

Since motorists already pay well over the odds, repeat after me "Cyclists
should pay Road Tax, Cyclists should pay Road Tax, Cyclists should pay Road
Tax...

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

Doug[_10_]

July 9th 10, 07:38 AM

On 8 July, 23:05, webreader > wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:12*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7 July, 17:39, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > On 6 July, 18:26, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> > > >> Doug wrote:
> > > >>> On 6 July, 15:48, PeterG > wrote:
> > > >>>>http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid...
> > > >>> And its time they also did something about pavement motorists who
> > > >>> think they can leave their cars lying about anywhere, damaging paving
> > > >>> slabs and regardless of the nuisance and danger it causes pedestrians.
> > > >>> Some have even been known to drive ALONG pavements to escape traffic
> > > >>> jams or to get to an empty space to park. Of course, cars are much
> > > >>> more dangerous than bicycles anyway.
>
> > > >> So because some motorists might do that, it is ok for cyclists to do
> > > >> what is reported in the link posted?
>
> > > > No because the report was from a motorist here who lacks a cyclist's
> > > > perspective, as usual.
>
> > > The report was from the police.
>
> > OK, the thread was from a motorist. Satisfied?
>
> > > >>> -- .
> > > >>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > >>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > >>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> But the report came from the police and the link was posted by a user
> of this NG & it was in the UK & about cyclists.
> That makes it on topic, unlike your post about petrol prices, but you
> want to dismiss it because it does not fit in with your blinkered
> ideas, well bad luck, perhaps one of your idiot budies will be along
> soon to post some dribble to back you up.
>
So the motorists, who deliberately annoy on this cycling NG, don't use
petrol or diesel and are unaffected by their prices?

Please do explain.

-- .
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug[_10_]

July 9th 10, 07:47 AM

On 8 July, 23:19, Squashme > wrote:
> On 8 July, 21:42, Derek C > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 7:38*pm, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > > On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 10:14*am, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > > > > So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>
> > > > No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
> > > > need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
> > > > the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>
> > > I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
> > > unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other people's
> > > lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit seems rather
> > > selfish. It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
> > > vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
> > > demon helmet-dodging cyclists.
>
> > As Doug keeps telling us that a driving licence is a licence to kill,
> > I am just retaliating to this unjustified slur on motorists'
> > characters!
>
> But you have no objection to unjustified generalised slurs about
> cyclists. Strange, a self-hating cyclist.
>
Yes I often wonder about that. Strange isn't it? I can only imagine it
is because they have become tainted by their frequent car use and have
actually hopped over the fence, so to speak, instead of remaining
sitting on it. Of course, a pure cyclist would stay firmly on their
side of the fence and, as a very vulnerable road user, would probably
see nothing wrong in breaking rules intended primarily for drivers to
survive.

-- .
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

webreader

July 9th 10, 06:04 PM

On Jul 9, 7:38*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 8 July, 23:05, webreader > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 8:12*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > On 7 July, 17:39, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > On 6 July, 18:26, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> > > > >> Doug wrote:
> > > > >>> On 6 July, 15:48, PeterG > wrote:
> > > > >>>>http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid...
> > > > >>> And its time they also did something about pavement motorists who
> > > > >>> think they can leave their cars lying about anywhere, damaging paving
> > > > >>> slabs and regardless of the nuisance and danger it causes pedestrians.
> > > > >>> Some have even been known to drive ALONG pavements to escape traffic
> > > > >>> jams or to get to an empty space to park. Of course, cars are much
> > > > >>> more dangerous than bicycles anyway.
>
> > > > >> So because some motorists might do that, it is ok for cyclists to do
> > > > >> what is reported in the link posted?
>
> > > > > No because the report was from a motorist here who lacks a cyclist's
> > > > > perspective, as usual.
>
> > > > The report was from the police.
>
> > > OK, the thread was from a motorist. Satisfied?
>
> > > > >>> -- .
> > > > >>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > > >>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > >>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> > But the report came from the police and the link was posted by a user
> > of this NG & it was in the UK & about cyclists.
> > That makes it on topic, unlike your post about petrol prices, but you
> > want to dismiss it because it does not fit in with your blinkered
> > ideas, well bad luck, perhaps one of your idiot budies will be along
> > soon to post some dribble to back you up.
>
> So the motorists, who deliberately annoy on this cycling NG, don't use
> petrol or diesel and are unaffected by their prices?
>
> Please do explain.
>
> -- .

1 Many motorists on this NG are also cyclists.
2 Many cyclists on this NG are also motorists
3 Some motorists on this NG deliberately annoy.
4 Some cyclists on this NG del deliberately annoy.
5 The OP was about the police dealing with problems caused by cyclists
6 If the post about fuel prices was aimed at motorists it was OT
7 You dismissed a post because it mentioned that some cyclists were
being targeted by the police because of complaints from other road
users
8 You were wrong with the post about fuel prices
9 You tried to twist the thread about the cyclists because a motorists
posted it & the police might be motorists.
10 You are the person on this NG who always posts in a way to
deliberately annoy.
11 You, my your own definition, are not a cyclist.
12 You use an illegal vehicle with no insurance or VED paid
13 I have now explained

> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

1 Many motorists on this NG are also cyclists.
2 Many cyclists on this NG are also motorists
3 Some motorists on this NG deliberatly annoy.
4 Some cyclists on this NG del

Squashme

July 9th 10, 06:43 PM

On 9 July, 01:08, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 8 July, 22:44, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 8, 10:14 am, Squashme > wrote:
>
> >>>>> So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>
> >>>> No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
> >>>> need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
> >>>> the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>
> >>> I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
> >>> unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other people's
> >>> lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit seems rather
> >>> selfish.
>
> >> Quite right.
>
> >>> It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
> >>> vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
> >>> demon helmet-dodging cyclists.
>
> >> At last you are developing some common sense.
>
> >> Now, repeat after me "Road Tax, Road Tax, Road Tax".
>
> > OK
>
> > Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road
> > Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase
> > Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax ...
>
> Since motorists already pay well over the odds, repeat after me "Cyclists
> should pay Road Tax, Cyclists should pay Road Tax, Cyclists should pay Road
> Tax...

Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels, usw

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 9th 10, 06:54 PM

Squashme wrote:
> On 9 July, 01:08, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 8 July, 22:44, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>> On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 8, 10:14 am, Squashme > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>>
>>>>>> No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel
>>>>>> any need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get
>>>>>> tarred with the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>>
>>>>> I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
>>>>> unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other
>>>>> people's lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit
>>>>> seems rather selfish.
>>
>>>> Quite right.
>>
>>>>> It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
>>>>> vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
>>>>> demon helmet-dodging cyclists.
>>
>>>> At last you are developing some common sense.
>>
>>>> Now, repeat after me "Road Tax, Road Tax, Road Tax".
>>
>>> OK
>>
>>> Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase
>>> Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax,
>>> Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax ...
>>
>> Since motorists already pay well over the odds, repeat after me
>> "Cyclists should pay Road Tax, Cyclists should pay Road Tax,
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax...
>
>
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels, usw

Based on the hot air they spout here, they couldn't afford it.

Don't tell me you have fallen for the CO2 emission levels bollox?

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

JNugent[_7_]

July 10th 10, 01:46 AM

Squashme wrote:

[ ... ]

> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on...

Merci bien.

To summarise:

Road Tax is something that road users should pay.

Fair enough.

mileburner

July 10th 10, 06:13 AM

"Squashme" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 July, 01:08, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>> > On 8 July, 22:44, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Squashme wrote:
>> >>> On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
>> >>>> On Jul 8, 10:14 am, Squashme > wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>>
>> >>>> No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
>> >>>> need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
>> >>>> the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>>
>> >>> I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
>> >>> unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other people's
>> >>> lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit seems rather
>> >>> selfish.
>>
>> >> Quite right.
>>
>> >>> It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
>> >>> vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
>> >>> demon helmet-dodging cyclists.
>>
>> >> At last you are developing some common sense.
>>
>> >> Now, repeat after me "Road Tax, Road Tax, Road Tax".
>>
>> > OK
>>
>> > Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road
>> > Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase
>> > Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax ...
>>
>> Since motorists already pay well over the odds, repeat after me "Cyclists
>> should pay Road Tax, Cyclists should pay Road Tax, Cyclists should pay
>> Road
>> Tax...
>
>
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels, usw

Yawn...

Cyclist really ought to get a rebate on so-called "Road Tax" for when the
car is sat in the drive and the driver is sat on the bike.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 10th 10, 09:34 AM

mile****** wrote:
> "Squashme" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9 July, 01:08, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>> On 8 July, 22:44, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>>> On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 10:14 am, Squashme > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>>>
>>>>>>> No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel
>>>>>>> any need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get
>>>>>>> tarred with the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>>>
>>>>>> I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
>>>>>> unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other
>>>>>> people's lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit
>>>>>> seems rather selfish.
>>>
>>>>> Quite right.
>>>
>>>>>> It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
>>>>>> vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared
>>>>>> to demon helmet-dodging cyclists.
>>>
>>>>> At last you are developing some common sense.
>>>
>>>>> Now, repeat after me "Road Tax, Road Tax, Road Tax".
>>>
>>>> OK
>>>
>>>> Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase
>>>> Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax,
>>>> Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax ...
>>>
>>> Since motorists already pay well over the odds, repeat after me
>>> "Cyclists should pay Road Tax, Cyclists should pay Road Tax,
>>> Cyclists should pay Road
>>> Tax...
>>
>>
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels, usw
>
> Yawn...
>
> Cyclist really ought to get a rebate on so-called "Road Tax" for when
> the car is sat in the drive and the driver is sat on the bike.

******nomics again. They should pay for both obviously. Were you born this
stupid?

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 10th 10, 09:36 AM

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Doug > considered Thu, 8 Jul 2010 23:38:06 -0700
> (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> So the motorists, who deliberately annoy on this cycling NG, don't
>> use petrol or diesel and are unaffected by their prices?
>>
>> Please do explain.
>>
> I use a mixture of used vegetable oil (free from the local chip shop)
> and fresh rapeseed oil (more expensive than free, but far less than
> mineral fuel).
> I'm hoping to phase out the fresh oil.
> In very cold weather I add a splash of petrol to thin it.

Typical sponging freeloading cyclist. Mumps free oil from the chippy, no
concern about stinking the neighborhood out. Just to avoid paying his way.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

Tony Dragon

July 10th 10, 09:46 AM

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Doug > considered Thu, 8 Jul 2010 23:38:06 -0700
> (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> So the motorists, who deliberately annoy on this cycling NG, don't use
>> petrol or diesel and are unaffected by their prices?
>>
>> Please do explain.
>>
> I use a mixture of used vegetable oil (free from the local chip shop)
> and fresh rapeseed oil (more expensive than free, but far less than
> mineral fuel).
> I'm hoping to phase out the fresh oil.
> In very cold weather I add a splash of petrol to thin it.

So you can't be a 'real' or 'pure' cyclist.

--
Tony Dragon

JNugent[_7_]

July 10th 10, 10:53 AM

mileburner wrote:
> "Squashme" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9 July, 01:08, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>> On 8 July, 22:44, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>>> On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 10:14 am, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>>>> So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>>>>>>> No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
>>>>>>> need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
>>>>>>> the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>>>>>> I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
>>>>>> unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other people's
>>>>>> lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit seems rather
>>>>>> selfish.
>>>>> Quite right.
>>>>>> It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
>>>>>> vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
>>>>>> demon helmet-dodging cyclists.
>>>>> At last you are developing some common sense.
>>>>> Now, repeat after me "Road Tax, Road Tax, Road Tax".
>>>> OK
>>>> Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road
>>>> Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase
>>>> Road Tax, Increase Road Tax, Increase Road Tax ...
>>> Since motorists already pay well over the odds, repeat after me "Cyclists
>>> should pay Road Tax, Cyclists should pay Road Tax, Cyclists should pay
>>> Road
>>> Tax...
>>
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels,
>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on their CO2 emission levels, usw
>
> Yawn...
>
> Cyclist really ought to get a rebate on so-called "Road Tax" for when the
> car is sat in the drive and the driver is sat on the bike.

Why?

No-one else does.

PeterG

July 10th 10, 01:45 PM

On Jul 6, 4:39*pm, PeterG > wrote:
> On Jul 6, 4:15*pm, "David" > wrote:
>
> > "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > >> Sorry? *Did I miss something? *In what way were they causing problems?
> > >> Breaking the law, yes, but causing problems?
>
> > > Quote "Riding on the pavement is one of the most common complaints we
> > > receive from the public"
>
> > > Complaints have been received, therefore there must have been problems.
>
> > LOL, no Mr.Dragon, that is not the case, although beautifully naïve.
> > :o)
>
> Are you saying that complaints do not indicate a problem?

Well as I am so anti cyclists (according to some) here's another
report (no doubt made my motorists)

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/yoursay/letters/8262409.Cyclists_should_get_off_the_pavement/

Doug[_3_]

July 11th 10, 06:18 AM

On 10 July, 01:46, JNugent > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on...
>
> Merci bien.
>
> To summarise:
>
> Road Tax is something that road users should pay.
>
> Fair enough.
>
There is no such thing as road tax and bicycles are not subject to
Vehicle Excise Duty. Everyone pays for the roads out of general
taxation and that is one reason why I object to the dominance of the
car culture and its harmful massive presence on our roads.

-- .
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug[_3_]

July 11th 10, 06:21 AM

On 10 July, 13:45, PeterG > wrote:
> On Jul 6, 4:39*pm, PeterG > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 4:15*pm, "David" > wrote:
>
> > > "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > >> Sorry? *Did I miss something? *In what way were they causing problems?
> > > >> Breaking the law, yes, but causing problems?
>
> > > > Quote "Riding on the pavement is one of the most common complaints we
> > > > receive from the public"
>
> > > > Complaints have been received, therefore there must have been problems.
>
> > > LOL, no Mr.Dragon, that is not the case, although beautifully naïve..
> > > :o)
>
> > Are you saying that complaints do not indicate a problem?
>
> Well as I am so anti cyclists (according to some) here's another
> report (no doubt made my motorists)
>
> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/yoursay/letters/8262409.Cyclists_should_g...
>
Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
pedestrians going about their lawful business.

-- .
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Tony Dragon

July 11th 10, 08:53 AM

Doug wrote:
> On 10 July, 01:46, JNugent > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> Cyclists should pay Road Tax based on...
>> Merci bien.
>>
>> To summarise:
>>
>> Road Tax is something that road users should pay.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>>
> There is no such thing as road tax and bicycles are not subject to
> Vehicle Excise Duty. Everyone pays for the roads out of general
> taxation and that is one reason why I object to the dominance of the
> car culture and its harmful massive presence on our roads.
>
> -- .
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

But although you try to divert the truth, you can not side step the fact
that most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to enable them to use the roads.

--
Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon

July 11th 10, 08:57 AM

Doug wrote:
> On 10 July, 13:45, PeterG > wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 4:39 pm, PeterG > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 6, 4:15 pm, "David" > wrote:
>>>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>> Sorry? Did I miss something? In what way were they causing problems?
>>>>>> Breaking the law, yes, but causing problems?
>>>>> Quote "Riding on the pavement is one of the most common complaints we
>>>>> receive from the public"
>>>>> Complaints have been received, therefore there must have been problems.
>>>> LOL, no Mr.Dragon, that is not the case, although beautifully naïve.
>>>> :o)
>>> Are you saying that complaints do not indicate a problem?
>> Well as I am so anti cyclists (according to some) here's another
>> report (no doubt made my motorists)
>>
>> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/yoursay/letters/8262409.Cyclists_should_g...
>>
> Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
> pedestrians going about their lawful business.
>
> -- .
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.

--
Tony Dragon

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 11th 10, 10:05 AM

Doug wrote:
> There is no such thing as road tax and bicycles are not subject to
> Vehicle Excise Duty. Everyone pays for the roads out of general
> taxation and that is one reason why I object to the dominance of the
> car culture and its harmful massive presence on our roads.

See John paying Income Tax, NI & VAT.
See Janet paying exactly the same Income Tax, NI & VAT.

See John buy a shiny new pushbike.
See Janet buy a shiny new car - but not one of the very few exceptions to
Road Tax.

See John ride his new pushbike on public roads.
John likes his new pushbike.

John has a new pair of lycra bib shorts.
See John searching for the pockets.

John can't find any pockets, but its OK because cyclists never put their
hands in them.

See PC Plod telling Janet she can't use her new car on the road unless she
has Road Tax.

PC Plod uses the term Road Tax because everyone knows what it means.

Janet knows what Road Tax is.
Janet knows her shiny new car could be crushed if she doesn't pay Road Tax.

John pretends not to know what Road Tax is - because he is a sponging
freeloader.

See Janet going to the Post Office with a large amount of cash.
Mr Stamp at the Post Office knows exactly what Janet means when she asks for
Road Tax.

Janet pays lots of money to Mr Stamp for her Road Tax Disc.
See Janet drive her car on the road without having to worry about PC Plod
and his ANPR cameras.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

mileburner

July 12th 10, 03:37 AM

"Doug" > wrote in message
...

> There is no such thing as road tax and bicycles are not subject to
> Vehicle Excise Duty. Everyone pays for the roads out of general
> taxation and that is one reason why I object to the dominance of the
> car culture and its harmful massive presence on our roads.

Which does open the debate, "Should drivers pay road tax?".

Since they clog up the roads, cause road damage, cause jams, cause a
nuisance to cyclists pedestrians, horse riders and everyone else, perhaps
they *should* pay Road Tax.

How about "congestion charging" in all towns and cities at peak times, so
that they pay a Road Tax to sit in a slow moving traffic jam? Say £5 per
day.

Pay per mile for A roads and Motorways? Say 10p per mile.

Now that really would raise some serious cash for the treasury as well as
reducing fossil fuel consumption, reducing traffic, reducing congestion and
improving the quality of life and heath of the nation.

mileburner

July 12th 10, 03:46 AM

"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...

> But although you try to divert the truth, you can not side step the fact
> that most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to enable them to use the
> roads.

Not quite...

If you want to be pedantic, you need to get your facts correct.

The *registered keeper* (who may or may not be a motorist) of a motor
vehicle (exclusions apply) is required to pay a tax to allow that *vehicle*
to be used on the public highway.

So to correct your somewhat misleading and incorrect statement:
"Most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to allow their vehicle to be used on
the roads".

Tony Dragon

July 12th 10, 06:52 AM

Tony Dragon

July 12th 10, 06:56 AM

mileburner wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> There is no such thing as road tax and bicycles are not subject to
>> Vehicle Excise Duty. Everyone pays for the roads out of general
>> taxation and that is one reason why I object to the dominance of the
>> car culture and its harmful massive presence on our roads.
>
> Which does open the debate, "Should drivers pay road tax?".

Tut tut, did you mean the registered keeper?

>
> Since they clog up the roads, cause road damage, cause jams, cause a
> nuisance to cyclists pedestrians, horse riders and everyone else, perhaps
> they *should* pay Road Tax.
>
> How about "congestion charging" in all towns and cities at peak times, so
> that they pay a Road Tax to sit in a slow moving traffic jam? Say £5 per
> day.
>
> Pay per mile for A roads and Motorways? Say 10p per mile.
>
> Now that really would raise some serious cash for the treasury as well as
> reducing fossil fuel consumption, reducing traffic, reducing congestion and
> improving the quality of life and heath of the nation.
>
>
Perhaps abolish Road Tax/VED & add it to fuel prices, the more you use
the more you pay.

(sound of worms crawling out of can)

--
Tony Dragon

JNugent[_7_]

July 12th 10, 08:40 AM

mileburner wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> But although you try to divert the truth, you can not side step the fact
>> that most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to enable them to use the
>> roads.
>
> Not quite...
>
> If you want to be pedantic, you need to get your facts correct.
>
> The *registered keeper* (who may or may not be a motorist) of a motor
> vehicle (exclusions apply) is required to pay a tax to allow that *vehicle*
> to be used on the public highway.
>
> So to correct your somewhat misleading and incorrect statement:

> "Most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to allow their vehicle to be used on
> the roads".

You are so wrong (yet again).

Most cars in the UK (one assumes your real target here is the car rather than
the commercial or public service vehicle) are owner-driven. Though the
requirement to pay Road Tax devolves upon their drivers in their capacity as
registered keeper rather than driver, it is still true to say:

"Most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to allow their vehicle to be used on
> the roads"

....and quite wrong to persist with your odd denial of that fact.

mileburner

July 12th 10, 11:02 AM

Tony Dragon wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> But although you try to divert the truth, you can not side step the
>>> fact that most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to enable them to
>>> use the roads.
>>
>> Not quite...
>>
>> If you want to be pedantic, you need to get your facts correct.
>>
>> The *registered keeper* (who may or may not be a motorist) of a motor
>> vehicle (exclusions apply) is required to pay a tax to allow that
>> *vehicle* to be used on the public highway.
>>
>> So to correct your somewhat misleading and incorrect statement:
>> "Most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to allow their vehicle to be
>> used on the roads".
>>
>>
>
> Well if we want to get pedantic, what I posted was correct as well.
>
> But anyway I am glad you agree with me.

The difference is that motorists do not pay a tax to *use the roads*. They
pay a tax to enable *their vehicle* to be used on the roads. They may use
the roads without paying said tax. It is just that they are not allowed to
use *a vehicle* which has not had the tax paid on it.

What also skews this bizarre idea that "motorists pay to use the roads and
cyclists do not", is that cyclists still have to pay tax on their cars.
There is no exemption for owning bicycles.

Wouldn't it be nice if by owning, registering or using a bicycle on a
regular basis we could claim a refund on the tax we pay on our cars?

mileburner

July 12th 10, 11:10 AM

Tony Dragon wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> There is no such thing as road tax and bicycles are not subject to
>>> Vehicle Excise Duty. Everyone pays for the roads out of general
>>> taxation and that is one reason why I object to the dominance of the
>>> car culture and its harmful massive presence on our roads.
>>
>> Which does open the debate, "Should drivers pay road tax?".
>
> Tut tut, did you mean the registered keeper?
>
No not at all. It should be the driver who is charged the tax. Just like
using the Dartford crossing or other toll roads. There is a good argument in
there somewhere for making the toll one way, south to north :-)

>> Since they clog up the roads, cause road damage, cause jams, cause a
>> nuisance to cyclists pedestrians, horse riders and everyone else,
>> perhaps they *should* pay Road Tax.
>>
>> How about "congestion charging" in all towns and cities at peak
>> times, so that they pay a Road Tax to sit in a slow moving traffic
>> jam? Say £5 per day.
>>
>> Pay per mile for A roads and Motorways? Say 10p per mile.
>>
>> Now that really would raise some serious cash for the treasury as
>> well as reducing fossil fuel consumption, reducing traffic, reducing
>> congestion and improving the quality of life and heath of the nation.
>>
>>
> Perhaps abolish Road Tax/VED & add it to fuel prices, the more you use
> the more you pay.

Seems reasonable to me. That way scum like TMH who use their vehicles all
day, belching out more fumes, causng more congestion and using up a greater
amount of road space than others (for the sole purpose keeping him off the
dole) pay their proper share, and cyclists who own cars which are sitting on
the driveway of their nice suburban houses are not subsidising the likes of
him.

Road pricing can take it one stage further and control which roads we use
and at what times we use them.

Mr. Benn[_4_]

July 12th 10, 11:41 AM

"mileburner" > wrote in message
...

> Wouldn't it be nice if by owning, registering or using a bicycle on a
> regular basis we could claim a refund on the tax we pay on our cars?

What about claiming a tax refund if we walk to the shops instead of driving
or cycling?

mileburner

July 12th 10, 11:50 AM

"Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
...
> "mileburner" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Wouldn't it be nice if by owning, registering or using a bicycle on a
>> regular basis we could claim a refund on the tax we pay on our cars?
>
> What about claiming a tax refund if we walk to the shops instead of
> driving or cycling?

Nice idea. Not sure about the cycling though.

JNugent[_7_]

July 12th 10, 05:39 PM

JNugent[_7_]

July 12th 10, 05:40 PM

Mr. Benn wrote:
> "mileburner" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Wouldn't it be nice if by owning, registering or using a bicycle on a
>> regular basis we could claim a refund on the tax we pay on our cars?
>
> What about claiming a tax refund if we walk to the shops instead of
> driving or cycling?

Or if we don't go at all and just send one of our people?

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 12th 10, 06:25 PM

mileburner wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> But although you try to divert the truth, you can not side step the
>> fact that most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to enable them to
>> use the roads.
>
> Not quite...
>
> If you want to be pedantic, you need to get your facts correct.
>
> The *registered keeper* (who may or may not be a motorist) of a motor
> vehicle (exclusions apply) is required to pay a tax to allow that
> *vehicle* to be used on the public highway.
>
> So to correct your somewhat misleading and incorrect statement:
> "Most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to allow their vehicle to be
> used on the roads".

And cyclists don't. Sponging freeloaders.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 12th 10, 06:27 PM

mileburner wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> But although you try to divert the truth, you can not side step the
>>>> fact that most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to enable them to
>>>> use the roads.
>>>
>>> Not quite...
>>>
>>> If you want to be pedantic, you need to get your facts correct.
>>>
>>> The *registered keeper* (who may or may not be a motorist) of a
>>> motor vehicle (exclusions apply) is required to pay a tax to allow
>>> that *vehicle* to be used on the public highway.
>>>
>>> So to correct your somewhat misleading and incorrect statement:
>>> "Most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to allow their vehicle to be
>>> used on the roads".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well if we want to get pedantic, what I posted was correct as well.
>>
>> But anyway I am glad you agree with me.
>
> The difference is that motorists do not pay a tax to *use the roads*.
> They pay a tax to enable *their vehicle* to be used on the roads.
> They may use the roads without paying said tax. It is just that they
> are not allowed to use *a vehicle* which has not had the tax paid on
> it.

See John paying Income Tax, NI & VAT.
See Janet paying exactly the same Income Tax, NI & VAT.

See John buy a shiny new pushbike.
See Janet buy a shiny new car - but not one of the very few exceptions to
Road Tax.

See John ride his new pushbike on public roads.
John likes his new pushbike.

John has a new pair of lycra bib shorts.

See John searching for the pockets.

John can’t find any pockets, but its OK because cyclists never put their
hands in them.

See PC Plod telling Janet she can't use her new car on the road unless she
has Road Tax.

PC Plod uses the term Road Tax because everyone knows what it means.

Janet knows what Road Tax is.
Janet knows her shiny new car could be crushed if she doesn’t pay Road Tax.

John pretends not to know what Road Tax is - because he is a sponging
freeloader.

See Janet going to the Post Office with a large amount of cash.

Mr Stamp at the Post Office knows exactly what Janet means when she asks for
Road Tax.

Janet pays lots of money to Mr Stamp for her Road Tax Disc.

See Janet drive her car on the road without having to worry about PC Plod
and his ANPR cameras.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 12th 10, 06:29 PM

JNugent wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>> mileburner wrote:
>>>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> But although you try to divert the truth, you can not side step
>>>>> the fact that most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to enable
>>>>> them to use the roads.
>>>> Not quite...
>>>>
>>>> If you want to be pedantic, you need to get your facts correct.
>>>>
>>>> The *registered keeper* (who may or may not be a motorist) of a
>>>> motor vehicle (exclusions apply) is required to pay a tax to allow
>>>> that *vehicle* to be used on the public highway.
>>>>
>>>> So to correct your somewhat misleading and incorrect statement:
>>>> "Most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to allow their vehicle to
>>>> be used on the roads".
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well if we want to get pedantic, what I posted was correct as well.
>>>
>>> But anyway I am glad you agree with me.
>>
>> The difference is that motorists do not pay a tax to *use the
>> roads*. They pay a tax to enable *their vehicle* to be used on the
>> roads.
>
> Oh, that's a HUGE duistinction and makes all the difference in the
> world, doesn't it?
>
> Or something.
>
> <rolls eys>

I expect it does to a **** like mile******.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 12th 10, 06:35 PM

mile****** wrote:

>
> Which does open the debate, "Should drivers pay road tax?".

This is mile****** trying to be a clever ****.

Note to mile****** - you aren't bright enough - don't bother.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 12th 10, 06:38 PM

mile****** wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> Perhaps abolish Road Tax/VED & add it to fuel prices, the more you
>> use the more you pay.
>
> Seems reasonable to me. That way scum like TMH who use their vehicles
> all day, belching out more fumes, causng more congestion and using up
> a greater amount of road space than others (for the sole purpose
> keeping him off the dole) pay their proper share, and cyclists who
> own cars which are sitting on the driveway of their nice suburban
> houses are not subsidising the likes of him.

Oh dear, you really have your (lycra) knickers in a twist don't you :-)

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

Tony Dragon

July 12th 10, 06:43 PM

JNugent wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>> mileburner wrote:
>>>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> But although you try to divert the truth, you can not side step the
>>>>> fact that most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to enable them to
>>>>> use the roads.
>>>> Not quite...
>>>>
>>>> If you want to be pedantic, you need to get your facts correct.
>>>>
>>>> The *registered keeper* (who may or may not be a motorist) of a motor
>>>> vehicle (exclusions apply) is required to pay a tax to allow that
>>>> *vehicle* to be used on the public highway.
>>>>
>>>> So to correct your somewhat misleading and incorrect statement:
>>>> "Most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to allow their vehicle to be
>>>> used on the roads".
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well if we want to get pedantic, what I posted was correct as well.
>>>
>>> But anyway I am glad you agree with me.
>>
>> The difference is that motorists do not pay a tax to *use the roads*.
>> They pay a tax to enable *their vehicle* to be used on the roads.
>
> Oh, that's a HUGE duistinction and makes all the difference in the
> world, doesn't it?
>
> Or something.
>
> <rolls eys>

He also missed the word 'most', but let him wriggle, it gives me a laugh.

--
Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon

July 12th 10, 06:45 PM

JNugent wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> But although you try to divert the truth, you can not side step the
>>> fact that most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to enable them to
>>> use the roads.
>>
>> Not quite...
>>
>> If you want to be pedantic, you need to get your facts correct.
>>
>> The *registered keeper* (who may or may not be a motorist) of a motor
>> vehicle (exclusions apply) is required to pay a tax to allow that
>> *vehicle* to be used on the public highway.
>>
>> So to correct your somewhat misleading and incorrect statement:
>
>> "Most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to allow their vehicle to be
>> used on the roads".
>
> You are so wrong (yet again).
>
> Most cars in the UK (one assumes your real target here is the car rather
> than the commercial or public service vehicle) are owner-driven. Though
> the requirement to pay Road Tax devolves upon their drivers in their
> capacity as registered keeper rather than driver, it is still true to say:
>
> "Most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to allow their vehicle to be
> used on
> > the roads"
>
> ...and quite wrong to persist with your odd denial of that fact.

It's not odd from him, he can't deny something so he has to put up a
smokescreen.

--
Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon

July 12th 10, 06:55 PM

mileburner wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as road tax and bicycles are not subject to
>>>> Vehicle Excise Duty. Everyone pays for the roads out of general
>>>> taxation and that is one reason why I object to the dominance of the
>>>> car culture and its harmful massive presence on our roads.
>>> Which does open the debate, "Should drivers pay road tax?".
>> Tut tut, did you mean the registered keeper?
>>
> No not at all. It should be the driver who is charged the tax. Just like
> using the Dartford crossing or other toll roads.

So what you want is toll booths all over the place, that would help
congestion,not.

> There is a good argument in
> there somewhere for making the toll one way, south to north :-)

Please discuss?

>>> Since they clog up the roads, cause road damage, cause jams, cause a
>>> nuisance to cyclists pedestrians, horse riders and everyone else,
>>> perhaps they *should* pay Road Tax.
>>>
>>> How about "congestion charging" in all towns and cities at peak
>>> times, so that they pay a Road Tax to sit in a slow moving traffic
>>> jam? Say £5 per day.
>>>
>>> Pay per mile for A roads and Motorways? Say 10p per mile.
>>>
>>> Now that really would raise some serious cash for the treasury as
>>> well as reducing fossil fuel consumption, reducing traffic, reducing
>>> congestion and improving the quality of life and heath of the nation.
>>>
>>>
>> Perhaps abolish Road Tax/VED & add it to fuel prices, the more you use
>> the more you pay.
>
> Seems reasonable to me. That way scum like TMH who use their vehicles all
> day,

If he was driving his vehicle all day, he would not be working much.

> belching out more fumes, causng more congestion and using up a greater
> amount of road space than others

IIRC he is using a Kango van, it's about the size of a medium car.

>(for the sole purpose keeping him off the
> dole)

Ah, you mean working for a living.

> pay their proper share, and cyclists who own cars which are sitting on
> the driveway of their nice suburban houses are not subsidising the likes of
> him.

As I use PT during the day, it would be cheaper for me.

>
> Road pricing can take it one stage further and control which roads we use
> and at what times we use them.
>
>

--
Tony Dragon

mileburner

July 12th 10, 07:26 PM

"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...
> JNugent wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>>> mileburner wrote:
>>>>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> But although you try to divert the truth, you can not side step the
>>>>>> fact that most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to enable them to
>>>>>> use the roads.
>>>>> Not quite...
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to be pedantic, you need to get your facts correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> The *registered keeper* (who may or may not be a motorist) of a motor
>>>>> vehicle (exclusions apply) is required to pay a tax to allow that
>>>>> *vehicle* to be used on the public highway.
>>>>>
>>>>> So to correct your somewhat misleading and incorrect statement:
>>>>> "Most motorists pay a specific tax/duty to allow their vehicle to be
>>>>> used on the roads".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well if we want to get pedantic, what I posted was correct as well.
>>>>
>>>> But anyway I am glad you agree with me.
>>>
>>> The difference is that motorists do not pay a tax to *use the roads*.
>>> They pay a tax to enable *their vehicle* to be used on the roads.
>>
>> Oh, that's a HUGE duistinction and makes all the difference in the world,
>> doesn't it?
>>
>> Or something.
>>
>> <rolls eys>
>
> He also missed the word 'most', but let him wriggle, it gives me a laugh.

Sorry. *Most* motorists pay a tax to enable *their vehicle* to be used on
the roads. I had thought that "most" was implied due to the context of the
quoted text. Perhaps you have moved to PlanetNugent and are seeking out new
things to argue over. Perhaps you need to be spoon fed like TMH?

The point remains that no one pays tax to *use the roads*.

HTH

mileburner

July 12th 10, 07:34 PM

"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...
> mileburner wrote:

>> No not at all. It should be the driver who is charged the tax. Just like
>> using the Dartford crossing or other toll roads.
>
> So what you want is toll booths all over the place, that would help
> congestion,not.

I do believe that it is possible to collect Road Tax without the need for a
toll booth.

>> There is a good argument in there somewhere for making the toll one way,
>> south to north :-)
>
> Please discuss?

To stop scum leaving Kent :-)

>> Seems reasonable to me. That way scum like TMH who use their vehicles all
>> day,
>
> If he was driving his vehicle all day, he would not be working much.

Using does not equate to driving.

>> belching out more fumes, causng more congestion and using up a greater
>> amount of road space than others
>
> IIRC he is using a Kango van, it's about the size of a medium car.

If you multiply time by area, you get a greater figure when time is greater
and area is the same.

>>(for the sole purpose keeping him off the dole)
>
> Ah, you mean working for a living.

Scamming cash from old ladies, I am led to believe - just watch him jump to
the defence...

>> pay their proper share, and cyclists who own cars which are sitting on
>> the driveway of their nice suburban houses are not subsidising the likes
>> of him.
>
> As I use PT during the day, it would be cheaper for me.

Bully for you.

JNugent[_7_]

July 12th 10, 08:14 PM

mileburner wrote:

> The point remains that no one pays tax to *use the roads*.

The fact remains that you are 100%, copper-bottomed, wrong in that.

I'm surprised you have put your position in such bullish terms, because all
it needs is one counter-example for your hypothesis (that's too grand a term,
really) to be falsified.

No motor vehicle (apart from one of Brown's Decoys) may be used on the roads
without someone having paid tax for it to be allowed to be used on the roads
("NIL in the case of one of the decoys, but the disc must still be obtained
and various hoops jumped through).

Unless every motor vehicle on the UK's roads is there without a valid road
tax disc, *someone* must be paying tax for their vehicle to be used on the roads.

I am, for one.

JNugent[_7_]

July 12th 10, 08:15 PM

mileburner wrote:

> I do believe that it is possible to collect Road Tax without the need for a
> toll booth.

Indeed it is. You are right for a change.

Road Tax *is* collected without a single toll booth being involved.

Tony Dragon

July 12th 10, 08:53 PM

JNugent wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>
>> The point remains that no one pays tax to *use the roads*.
>
> The fact remains that you are 100%, copper-bottomed, wrong in that.
>
> I'm surprised you have put your position in such bullish terms, because
> all it needs is one counter-example for your hypothesis (that's too
> grand a term, really) to be falsified.
>
> No motor vehicle (apart from one of Brown's Decoys) may be used on the
> roads without someone having paid tax for it to be allowed to be used on
> the roads ("NIL in the case of one of the decoys, but the disc must
> still be obtained and various hoops jumped through).
>
> Unless every motor vehicle on the UK's roads is there without a valid
> road tax disc, *someone* must be paying tax for their vehicle to be used
> on the roads.
>
> I am, for one.

He does a good job of wriggling & digging at the same time doesn't he?

--
Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon

July 12th 10, 09:03 PM

mileburner wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> mileburner wrote:
>
>>> No not at all. It should be the driver who is charged the tax. Just like
>>> using the Dartford crossing or other toll roads.
>> So what you want is toll booths all over the place, that would help
>> congestion,not.
>
> I do believe that it is possible to collect Road Tax without the need for a
> toll booth.
>

I would welcome your ideas.

>>> There is a good argument in there somewhere for making the toll one way,
>>> south to north :-)
>> Please discuss?
>
> To stop scum leaving Kent :-)
>

But i could fill up.

>>> Seems reasonable to me. That way scum like TMH who use their vehicles all
>>> day,
>> If he was driving his vehicle all day, he would not be working much.
>
> Using does not equate to driving.
>

If he is not driving it how would it belch out fumes?

>>> belching out more fumes, causng more congestion and using up a greater
>>> amount of road space than others
>> IIRC he is using a Kango van, it's about the size of a medium car.
>
> If you multiply time by area, you get a greater figure when time is greater
> and area is the same.
>

Could you provide examples.

>>> (for the sole purpose keeping him off the dole)
>> Ah, you mean working for a living.
>
> Scamming cash from old ladies, I am led to believe - just watch him jump to
> the defence...
>

You have evidence of this?

>>> pay their proper share, and cyclists who own cars which are sitting on
>>> the driveway of their nice suburban houses are not subsidising the likes
>>> of him.
>> As I use PT during the day, it would be cheaper for me.
>
> Bully for you.
>
>

Ifanku

--
Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon

July 12th 10, 09:04 PM

JNugent wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>
>> I do believe that it is possible to collect Road Tax without the need
>> for a toll booth.
>
> Indeed it is. You are right for a change.
>
> Road Tax *is* collected without a single toll booth being involved.

Just let him dig.

--
Tony Dragon

mileburner

July 12th 10, 09:20 PM

"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...
> JNugent wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:
>>
>>> The point remains that no one pays tax to *use the roads*.
>>
>> The fact remains that you are 100%, copper-bottomed, wrong in that.
>>
>> I'm surprised you have put your position in such bullish terms, because
>> all it needs is one counter-example for your hypothesis (that's too grand
>> a term, really) to be falsified.
>>
>> No motor vehicle (apart from one of Brown's Decoys) may be used on the
>> roads without someone having paid tax for it to be allowed to be used on
>> the roads ("NIL in the case of one of the decoys, but the disc must still
>> be obtained and various hoops jumped through).
>>
>> Unless every motor vehicle on the UK's roads is there without a valid
>> road tax disc, *someone* must be paying tax for their vehicle to be used
>> on the roads.
>>
>> I am, for one.
>
> He does a good job of wriggling & digging at the same time doesn't he?

Dunno, I pay the tax on two vehicles but I never pay tax to use the roads.
They are there FOC :-)

mileburner

July 12th 10, 09:23 PM

"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...
> JNugent wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:
>>
>>> I do believe that it is possible to collect Road Tax without the need
>>> for a toll booth.
>>
>> Indeed it is. You are right for a change.
>>
>> Road Tax *is* collected without a single toll booth being involved.
>
> Just let him dig.

There is no road tax as such, although you could claim the congestion charge
and tolls are - if you wanted to that is. I don't see toll booths ringing
London...

Tony Dragon

July 12th 10, 09:57 PM

mileburner wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> mileburner wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do believe that it is possible to collect Road Tax without the need
>>>> for a toll booth.
>>> Indeed it is. You are right for a change.
>>>
>>> Road Tax *is* collected without a single toll booth being involved.
>> Just let him dig.
>
> There is no road tax as such, although you could claim the congestion charge
> and tolls are - if you wanted to that is. I don't see toll booths ringing
> London...
>
>

Keep digging.

--
Tony Dragon

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 12th 10, 10:21 PM

mile****** wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> mileburner wrote:
>>>
>>>> The point remains that no one pays tax to *use the roads*.
>>>
>>> The fact remains that you are 100%, copper-bottomed, wrong in that.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised you have put your position in such bullish terms,
>>> because all it needs is one counter-example for your hypothesis
>>> (that's too grand a term, really) to be falsified.
>>>
>>> No motor vehicle (apart from one of Brown's Decoys) may be used on
>>> the roads without someone having paid tax for it to be allowed to
>>> be used on the roads ("NIL in the case of one of the decoys, but
>>> the disc must still be obtained and various hoops jumped through).
>>>
>>> Unless every motor vehicle on the UK's roads is there without a
>>> valid road tax disc, *someone* must be paying tax for their vehicle
>>> to be used on the roads.
>>>
>>> I am, for one.
>>
>> He does a good job of wriggling & digging at the same time doesn't
>> he?
>
> Dunno, I pay the tax on two vehicles but I never pay tax to use the
> roads. They are there FOC :-)

Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh stop it - you just get funnier all the time.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 12th 10, 10:30 PM

mile****** wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> mileburner wrote:
>
>>> No not at all. It should be the driver who is charged the tax. Just
>>> like using the Dartford crossing or other toll roads.
>>
>> So what you want is toll booths all over the place, that would help
>> congestion,not.
>
> I do believe that it is possible to collect Road Tax without the need
> for a toll booth.
>
>>> There is a good argument in there somewhere for making the toll one
>>> way, south to north :-)
>>
>> Please discuss?
>
> To stop scum leaving Kent :-)
>
>>> Seems reasonable to me. That way scum like TMH who use their
>>> vehicles all day,
>>
>> If he was driving his vehicle all day, he would not be working much.
>
> Using does not equate to driving.

Right. So what would I be 'using' my vehicle for then?

>>> belching out more fumes, causng more congestion and using up a
>>> greater amount of road space than others

But if I'm 'using' my vehicle - as opposed to driving it, how could I do the
above?

You've been on the Vimto again haven't you?
>>
>> IIRC he is using a Kango van, it's about the size of a medium car.
>
> If you multiply time by area, you get a greater figure when time is
> greater and area is the same.

Try that again when sober ****wit.

>>> (for the sole purpose keeping him off the dole)
>>
>> Ah, you mean working for a living.

Shhhh. Don't say that to mole****** - you will scare him.

Sorry. 'Mole******' was a typo. But I rather like it.
>
> Scamming cash from old ladies, I am led to believe - just watch him
> jump to the defence...

Listen ****wit, you've tried every insult in the book, none of which have
got you anywhere - apart from enhancing your reputation as a complete ****.

Three words. Trading Standards Acreddited.

Oh **** me, you've dropped another bollock haven't you mole******?

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 12th 10, 10:32 PM

Tony Dragon wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> mileburner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do believe that it is possible to collect Road Tax without the
>>>>> need for a toll booth.
>>>> Indeed it is. You are right for a change.
>>>>
>>>> Road Tax *is* collected without a single toll booth being involved.
>>> Just let him dig.
>>
>> There is no road tax as such, although you could claim the
>> congestion charge and tolls are - if you wanted to that is. I don't
>> see toll booths ringing London...
>>
>>
>
> Keep digging.

I can get him a good deal on a JCB - where do I send it?

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

mileburner

July 13th 10, 05:31 AM

"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...
> mileburner wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> mileburner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do believe that it is possible to collect Road Tax without the need
>>>>> for a toll booth.
>>>> Indeed it is. You are right for a change.
>>>>
>>>> Road Tax *is* collected without a single toll booth being involved.
>>> Just let him dig.
>>
>> There is no road tax as such, although you could claim the congestion
>> charge and tolls are - if you wanted to that is. I don't see toll booths
>> ringing London...
>
> Keep digging.

Perhaps you could point out where all these imaginary toll booths are that
are set up to collect the congestion charge?

When road pricing eventually is introduced, do you *really* think there will
be a little man in a box collecting cash at various stop points?
<rhetorical>

I do think it is about time that drivers *were* charged Road Tax though. But
there seems to be this idea amongst the deluded that they already do.

<sigh>

Tony Dragon

July 13th 10, 06:55 AM

webreader

July 13th 10, 06:58 AM

On Jul 13, 6:55*am, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
> > "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> mileburner wrote:
> >>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> JNugent wrote:
> >>>>> mileburner wrote:
>
> >>>>>> I do believe that it is possible to collect Road Tax without the need
> >>>>>> for a toll booth.
> >>>>> Indeed it is. You are right for a change.
>
> >>>>> Road Tax *is* collected without a single toll booth being involved.
> >>>> Just let him dig.
> >>> There is no road tax as such, although you could claim the congestion
> >>> charge and tolls are - if you wanted to that is. I don't see toll booths
> >>> ringing London...
> >> Keep digging.
>
> > Perhaps you could point out where all these imaginary toll booths are that
> > are set up to collect the congestion charge?
>
> > When road pricing eventually is introduced, do you *really* think there will
> > be a little man in a box collecting cash at various stop points?
> > <rhetorical>
>
> > I do think it is about time that drivers *were* charged Road Tax though.. But
> > there seems to be this idea amongst the deluded that they already do.
>
> > <sigh>
>
> You were the one harping on about 'motorist' & 'registered keeper'.
> The congestion charge if not paid starts proceedings to the registered
> keeper, if you want the motorist to pay you need something like a toll
> booth.
>
> --
> Tony Dragon

He might find one of these useful.

http://www.toyrific.co.uk/images/big%20digger.JPG

mileburner

July 13th 10, 06:58 AM

Tony Dragon wrote:

> You were the one harping on about 'motorist' & 'registered keeper'.
> The congestion charge if not paid starts proceedings to the registered
> keeper, if you want the motorist to pay you need something like a toll
> booth.

Keep digging

Doug[_3_]

July 13th 10, 07:17 AM

On 11 July, 08:57, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 10 July, 13:45, PeterG > wrote:
> >> On Jul 6, 4:39 pm, PeterG > wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 6, 4:15 pm, "David" > wrote:
> >>>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>> Sorry? *Did I miss something? *In what way were they causing problems?
> >>>>>> Breaking the law, yes, but causing problems?
> >>>>> Quote "Riding on the pavement is one of the most common complaints we
> >>>>> receive from the public"
> >>>>> Complaints have been received, therefore there must have been problems.
> >>>> LOL, no Mr.Dragon, that is not the case, although beautifully naïve.
> >>>> :o)
> >>> Are you saying that complaints do not indicate a problem?
> >> Well as I am so anti cyclists (according to some) here's another
> >> report (no doubt made my motorists)
>
> >>http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/yoursay/letters/8262409.Cyclists_should_g....
>
> > Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
> > pedestrians going about their lawful business.
>
>
> So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.
>
Yes but I fully understand why they feel the need to do it, bearing in
mind that pavement cycling is extremely inconvenient because of all
the obstacles on pavements. It might be a little safer than riding on
the road but ignores the fact that drivers sometimes crash, drive or
park on pavements. Even people actually inside houses are not safe
from crashing drivers, let alone vulnerable pavement users. Don't
forget also that a car can kill several people at once who are
together on a pavement, something a cyclists could never do

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Tony Dragon

July 13th 10, 07:36 AM

Doug wrote:
> On 11 July, 08:57, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 10 July, 13:45, PeterG > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 6, 4:39 pm, PeterG > wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 6, 4:15 pm, "David" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Sorry? Did I miss something? In what way were they causing problems?
>>>>>>>> Breaking the law, yes, but causing problems?
>>>>>>> Quote "Riding on the pavement is one of the most common complaints we
>>>>>>> receive from the public"
>>>>>>> Complaints have been received, therefore there must have been problems.
>>>>>> LOL, no Mr.Dragon, that is not the case, although beautifully naïve.
>>>>>> :o)
>>>>> Are you saying that complaints do not indicate a problem?
>>>> Well as I am so anti cyclists (according to some) here's another
>>>> report (no doubt made my motorists)
>>>> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/yoursay/letters/8262409.Cyclists_should_g...
>>> Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
>>> pedestrians going about their lawful business.
>>
>> So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.
>>
> Yes but I fully understand why they feel the need to do it, bearing in
> mind that pavement cycling is extremely inconvenient because of all
> the obstacles on pavements. It might be a little safer than riding on
> the road but ignores the fact that drivers sometimes crash, drive or
> park on pavements. Even people actually inside houses are not safe
> from crashing drivers, let alone vulnerable pavement users. Don't
> forget also that a car can kill several people at once who are
> together on a pavement, something a cyclists could never do
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Thank you for at last agreeing that cyclists should not cycle on the
pavement, and before the usual idiots come along I am not talking about
shared use, that can be another discussion.

--
Tony Dragon

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 13th 10, 10:41 PM

Doug wrote:
> On 11 July, 08:57, Tony Dragon > wrote:

>>
>>> Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
>>> pedestrians going about their lawful business.
>>
>>
>> So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.
>>
> Yes but I fully understand why they feel the need to do it, bearing in
> mind that pavement cycling is extremely inconvenient because of all
> the obstacles on pavements.

Riding on the pavement is illegal, no ifs, no buts. Illegal.

The 'obstacles' you mention are for the benefit of pedestrians. That they
make cycling on the pavement 'inconvenient' is neither here notr there. It
is against the law - end of debate.

>It might be a little safer than riding on
> the road but ignores the fact that drivers sometimes crash, drive or
> park on pavements.

Rarely crash, rarely drive, occassionally park.

> Even people actually inside houses are not safe
> from crashing drivers, let alone vulnerable pavement users. Don't
> forget also that a car can kill several people at once who are
> together on a pavement, something a cyclists could never do

But fatalities from motorists are extemely rare events. 1 in 120,000,000
miles drive.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 13th 10, 10:43 PM

mileburner wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> mileburner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do believe that it is possible to collect Road Tax without the
>>>>>> need for a toll booth.
>>>>> Indeed it is. You are right for a change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Road Tax *is* collected without a single toll booth being
>>>>> involved. Just let him dig.
>>>
>>> There is no road tax as such, although you could claim the
>>> congestion charge and tolls are - if you wanted to that is. I don't
>>> see toll booths ringing London...
>>
>> Keep digging.
>
> Perhaps you could point out where all these imaginary toll booths are
> that are set up to collect the congestion charge?
>
> When road pricing eventually is introduced, do you *really* think
> there will be a little man in a box collecting cash at various stop
> points? <rhetorical>
>
> I do think it is about time that drivers *were* charged Road Tax
> though. But there seems to be this idea amongst the deluded that they
> already do.
> <sigh>
See John paying Income Tax, NI & VAT.
See Janet paying exactly the same Income Tax, NI & VAT.

See John buy a shiny new pushbike.
See Janet buy a shiny new car - but not one of the very few exceptions to
Road Tax.

See John ride his new pushbike on public roads.
John likes his new pushbike.

John has a new pair of lycra bib shorts.

See John searching for the pockets.

John can’t find any pockets, but its OK because cyclists never put their
hands in them.

See PC Plod telling Janet she can't use her new car on the road unless she
has Road Tax.

PC Plod uses the term Road Tax because everyone knows what it means.

Janet knows what Road Tax is.
Janet knows her shiny new car could be crushed if she doesn’t pay Road Tax.

John pretends not to know what Road Tax is - because he is a sponging
freeloader.

See Janet going to the Post Office with a large amount of cash.

Mr Stamp at the Post Office knows exactly what Janet means when she asks for
Road Tax.

Janet pays lots of money to Mr Stamp for her Road Tax Disc.

See Janet drive her car on the road without having to worry about PC Plod
and his ANPR cameras.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 13th 10, 10:44 PM

mileburner wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>
>> You were the one harping on about 'motorist' & 'registered keeper'.
>> The congestion charge if not paid starts proceedings to the
>> registered keeper, if you want the motorist to pay you need
>> something like a toll booth.
>
> Keep digging

What a ****wit you are mole******.

You are the one digging yourself a ****ing huge hole.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

webreader

July 13th 10, 11:33 PM

On Jul 13, 7:17*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 11 July, 08:57, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 10 July, 13:45, PeterG > wrote:
> > >> On Jul 6, 4:39 pm, PeterG > wrote:
>
> > >>> On Jul 6, 4:15 pm, "David" > wrote:
> > >>>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>>>> Sorry? *Did I miss something? *In what way were they causing problems?
> > >>>>>> Breaking the law, yes, but causing problems?
> > >>>>> Quote "Riding on the pavement is one of the most common complaints we
> > >>>>> receive from the public"
> > >>>>> Complaints have been received, therefore there must have been problems.
> > >>>> LOL, no Mr.Dragon, that is not the case, although beautifully naïve.
> > >>>> :o)
> > >>> Are you saying that complaints do not indicate a problem?
> > >> Well as I am so anti cyclists (according to some) here's another
> > >> report (no doubt made my motorists)
>
> > >>http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/yoursay/letters/8262409.Cyclists_should_g....
>
> > > Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
> > > pedestrians going about their lawful business.
>
> > So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.
>
> Yes but I fully understand why they feel the need to do it,

Yes I would expect you to know about illegal activities.

> bearing in
> mind that pavement cycling is extremely inconvenient because of all
> the obstacles on pavements.

Yes, those pedestrians really get in the way don't they?

> It might be a little safer than riding on
> the road

But you ignore the fact that it is not safer for pedestrians.

> but ignores the fact that drivers sometimes crash, drive or
> park on pavements.

Ah the old sdome motorists do it, so cyclists should be able to do it
rubish.

> Even people actually inside houses are not safe
> from crashing drivers,

Yes, cars crash into houses every day, the media don't report it
because they are motorists.

> let alone vulnerable pavement users.

Now they're vulnerable, but only from cars, not cycles of course.

> Don't
> forget also that a car can kill several people at once who are
> together on a pavement, something a cyclists could never do
>
> -- .

Anything to excuse a cyclist then.

> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

webreader

July 13th 10, 11:36 PM

On Jul 13, 10:44*pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
> > Tony Dragon wrote:
>
> >> You were the one harping on about 'motorist' & 'registered keeper'.
> >> The congestion charge if not paid starts proceedings to the
> >> registered keeper, if you want the motorist to pay you need
> >> something like a toll booth.
>
> > Keep digging
>
> What a ****wit you are mole******.
>
> You are the one digging yourself a ****ing huge hole.
>
> --
> Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
> viable form of transport.

When it's deep enough, with him at the bottom, can I borrow that JCB?

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 14th 10, 12:10 AM

webreader wrote:
> On Jul 13, 10:44 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>
>>>> You were the one harping on about 'motorist' & 'registered keeper'.
>>>> The congestion charge if not paid starts proceedings to the
>>>> registered keeper, if you want the motorist to pay you need
>>>> something like a toll booth.
>>
>>> Keep digging
>>
>> What a ****wit you are mole******.
>>
>> You are the one digging yourself a ****ing huge hole.
>>
>> --
>> Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's
>> toy, not a viable form of transport.
>
> When it's deep enough, with him at the bottom, can I borrow that JCB?

You won't need it. The **** he constantly comes out with will bury him
quickly enough.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

mileburner

July 14th 10, 04:42 AM

"webreader" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 13, 10:44 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Dave - intelligent

Wrong :-)

Derek C

July 14th 10, 07:04 AM

On Jul 8, 11:19*pm, Squashme > wrote:
> On 8 July, 21:42, Derek C > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 7:38*pm, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > > On 8 July, 11:00, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 10:14*am, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > > > > So give up cycling then. You do seem to hate it.
>
> > > > No thanks, because I enjoy it and it keeps me fit. I don't feel any
> > > > need to break the law on a bike and I don't wish to get tarred with
> > > > the same brush as those who do so deliberately. OK?
>
> > > I just don't see how you can enjoy riding a bicycle which "is an
> > > unlicenced weapon to kill." Taking such a chance with other people's
> > > lives just because you imagine that it may keep you fit seems rather
> > > selfish. It would be more fitting for you to stay in your motor
> > > vehicle. Apparently they are harmless, nay benevolent, compared to
> > > demon helmet-dodging cyclists.
>
> > As Doug keeps telling us that a driving licence is a licence to kill,
> > I am just retaliating to this unjustified slur on motorists'
> > characters!
>
> But you have no objection to unjustified generalised slurs about
> cyclists. Strange, a self-hating cyclist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Most 'generalised slurs' about cyclists, such as red light jumping,
riding on the footpath, riding the wrong way along one way streets,
riding without lights at night and so on, seem to be very well
justified. I have no reason to hate myself because I don't do any of
these foolhardy and dangerous acts.

Derek C

Doug[_3_]

July 14th 10, 07:35 AM

On 13 July, 22:41, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 11 July, 08:57, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
> >>> Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
> >>> pedestrians going about their lawful business.
>
> >> So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.
>
> > Yes but I fully understand why they feel the need to do it, bearing in
> > mind that pavement cycling is extremely inconvenient because of all
> > the obstacles on pavements.
>
> Riding on the pavement is illegal, no ifs, no buts. *Illegal.
>
Also applies to cars illegally parked and driven on pavements. So,
your point?
>
> The 'obstacles' you mention are for the benefit of pedestrians. *That they
> make cycling on the pavement 'inconvenient' is neither here notr there. *It
> is against the law - end of debate.
>
Wrong, particularly road signs are for the benefit of drivers as are
traffic light posts, etc.
>
> >It might be a little safer than riding on
> > the road but ignores the fact that drivers sometimes crash, drive or
> > park on pavements.
>
> Rarely crash, rarely drive, occassionally park.
>
So? Do you mean that is because it is rare it doesn't matter at all?
If so, then cyclists killing pedestrians are even rarer so we can
completely discount those.
>
> > Even people actually inside houses are not safe
> > from crashing drivers, let alone vulnerable pavement users. Don't
> > forget also that a car can kill several people at once who are
> > together on a pavement, something a cyclists could never do
>
> But fatalities from motorists are extemely rare events. *1 in 120,000,000
> miles drive.
>
Murders are rare too so you think they don't matter? Murders in the UK
are 0.0140633 per 1,000 people or a tiny 840 for the whole population.
Insignificant!

Doug.

JNugent[_7_]

July 14th 10, 08:30 AM

Doug wrote:

> "The Medway Handyman" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Tony Dragon > wrote:

>>>>> Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
>>>>> pedestrians going about their lawful business.

>>>> So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.

>>> Yes but I fully understand why they feel the need to do it, bearing in
>>> mind that pavement cycling is extremely inconvenient because of all
>>> the obstacles on pavements.

>> Riding on the pavement is illegal, no ifs, no buts. Illegal.

> Also applies to cars illegally parked and driven on pavements. So,
> your point?

Let's just examine your "point":

PP says "A is illegal, no ifs, no buts".

You say: "That also applies to [anything else] when it does in such a way as
to be illegal".

Your retort is what is known as a truism. You might just as well have said
that lending medical assistance and saving someone's life in an emergency is
illegal when it's illegal.

Tony Dragon

July 14th 10, 05:43 PM

Doug wrote:
> On 13 July, 22:41, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 11 July, 08:57, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>>> Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
>>>>> pedestrians going about their lawful business.
>>>> So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.
>>> Yes but I fully understand why they feel the need to do it, bearing in
>>> mind that pavement cycling is extremely inconvenient because of all
>>> the obstacles on pavements.
>> Riding on the pavement is illegal, no ifs, no buts. Illegal.
>>
> Also applies to cars illegally parked and driven on pavements. So,
> your point?

You are quite right illegally parked cars are illegal.

>> The 'obstacles' you mention are for the benefit of pedestrians. That they
>> make cycling on the pavement 'inconvenient' is neither here notr there. It
>> is against the law - end of debate.
>>
> Wrong, particularly road signs are for the benefit of drivers as are
> traffic light posts, etc.

Just to repeat what was posted on another thread.

While waiting for the bus tonight I looked at the various bits of street
furniture

Lamposts, we don't need them let every body walk/cycle/drive in the dark.
BT Cabinet don't need that lets get rid of phones etc
Bus stop, well we can do without that, get rid of buses, everybody can
cycle instead
Bus shelter, if there are no buses we don't need a bus shelter.
Post box, let everybody walk to the post office then we can get rid of
those nasty red boxes.
Litter bins, just throw it on the floor.
Seats/benches, let the old/infirm walk.
Cycle racks, well if there are no buses etc the shops will close, so
there will be no use for bikes, so no cycle racks.

>>> It might be a little safer than riding on
>>> the road but ignores the fact that drivers sometimes crash, drive or
>>> park on pavements.
>> Rarely crash, rarely drive, occassionally park.
>>
> So? Do you mean that is because it is rare it doesn't matter at all?
> If so, then cyclists killing pedestrians are even rarer so we can
> completely discount those.

You do already.

>>> Even people actually inside houses are not safe
>>> from crashing drivers, let alone vulnerable pavement users. Don't
>>> forget also that a car can kill several people at once who are
>>> together on a pavement, something a cyclists could never do
>> But fatalities from motorists are extemely rare events. 1 in 120,000,000
>> miles drive.
>>
> Murders are rare too so you think they don't matter? Murders in the UK
> are 0.0140633 per 1,000 people or a tiny 840 for the whole population.
> Insignificant!
>
> Doug.
>
>

--
Tony Dragon

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 14th 10, 06:28 PM

Doug wrote:
> On 13 July, 22:41, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 11 July, 08:57, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
>>>>> pedestrians going about their lawful business.
>>
>>>> So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.
>>
>>> Yes but I fully understand why they feel the need to do it, bearing
>>> in mind that pavement cycling is extremely inconvenient because of
>>> all the obstacles on pavements.
>>
>> Riding on the pavement is illegal, no ifs, no buts. Illegal.
>>
> Also applies to cars illegally parked and driven on pavements. So,
> your point?

It does indeed. But drivers of cars illegally parked get fined or towed,
drivers rarely drive on pavements, if they did, they could be identified &
fined. Cyclists remain unidentifiable & escape.

>> The 'obstacles' you mention are for the benefit of pedestrians. That
>> they make cycling on the pavement 'inconvenient' is neither here
>> notr there. It is against the law - end of debate.
>>
> Wrong, particularly road signs are for the benefit of drivers as are
> traffic light posts, etc.

But cycling on the pavement is illegal.
>>
>>> It might be a little safer than riding on
>>> the road but ignores the fact that drivers sometimes crash, drive or
>>> park on pavements.
>>
>> Rarely crash, rarely drive, occassionally park.
>>
> So? Do you mean that is because it is rare it doesn't matter at all?

Yup.. You got it. Cycling on pavements is commonplace & terrifies
pedestrians.

> If so, then cyclists killing pedestrians are even rarer so we can
> completely discount those.

I'd still like the figures on the number of cyclists & their mileage so we
can compare accidents with miles driven. Do you have those?

>>
>>> Even people actually inside houses are not safe
>>> from crashing drivers, let alone vulnerable pavement users. Don't
>>> forget also that a car can kill several people at once who are
>>> together on a pavement, something a cyclists could never do
>>
>> But fatalities from motorists are extemely rare events. 1 in
>> 120,000,000 miles drive.
>>
> Murders are rare too so you think they don't matter? Murders in the UK
> are 0.0140633 per 1,000 people or a tiny 840 for the whole population.
> Insignificant!

Diversionary tactic ****wit. Stay on topic.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 14th 10, 06:30 PM

mileburner wrote:
> "webreader" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jul 13, 10:44 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dave - intelligent
>
> Wrong :-)

Mole****** - ****.

Correct.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

Doug[_3_]

July 15th 10, 06:18 AM

On 14 July, 18:28, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 13 July, 22:41, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 11 July, 08:57, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
> >>>>> Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
> >>>>> pedestrians going about their lawful business.
>
> >>>> So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.
>
> >>> Yes but I fully understand why they feel the need to do it, bearing
> >>> in mind that pavement cycling is extremely inconvenient because of
> >>> all the obstacles on pavements.
>
> >> Riding on the pavement is illegal, no ifs, no buts. Illegal.
>
> > Also applies to cars illegally parked and driven on pavements. So,
> > your point?
>
> It does indeed. *But drivers of cars illegally parked get fined or towed,
> drivers rarely drive on pavements, if they did, they could be identified &
> fined. *Cyclists remain unidentifiable & escape.
>
Drivers do not always get fined for parking/driving on pavements
illegally. Sometimes they are so desperate to find a place to park
their car they will take a chance and get away with it.
>
> >> The 'obstacles' you mention are for the benefit of pedestrians. That
> >> they make cycling on the pavement 'inconvenient' is neither here
> >> notr there. It is against the law - end of debate.
>
> > Wrong, particularly road signs are for the benefit of drivers as are
> > traffic light posts, etc.
>
> But cycling on the pavement is illegal.
>
As can be parking and driving by motorists on pavements.
>
>
> >>> It might be a little safer than riding on
> >>> the road but ignores the fact that drivers sometimes crash, drive or
> >>> park on pavements.
>
> >> Rarely crash, rarely drive, occassionally park.
>
> > So? Do you mean that is because it is rare it doesn't matter at all?
>
> Yup.. You got it. *Cycling on pavements is commonplace & terrifies
> pedestrians.
>
Surely, because they are much more dangerous, cars must terrify
pedestrians even more? Don't forget that a car can kill several people
at once when it crashes on pavements. Impossible for a cyclist.
>
> > If so, then cyclists killing pedestrians are even rarer so we can
> > completely discount those.
>
> I'd still like the figures on the number of cyclists & their mileage so we
> can compare accidents with miles driven. *Do you have those?
>
I don't see your point. Motorists as a class kill many more people
than cyclists as a class and the former are much more dangerous.
>
>
> >>> Even people actually inside houses are not safe
> >>> from crashing drivers, let alone vulnerable pavement users. Don't
> >>> forget also that a car can kill several people at once who are
> >>> together on a pavement, something a cyclists could never do
>
> >> But fatalities from motorists are extemely rare events. 1 in
> >> 120,000,000 miles drive.
>
> > Murders are rare too so you think they don't matter? Murders in the UK
> > are 0.0140633 per 1,000 people or a tiny 840 for the whole population.
> > Insignificant!
>
> Diversionary tactic ****wit. *Stay on topic.
>
It is your topic. You are claiming that rare killings don't matter in
terms of distance travelled. A principle which is not applied to other
types of killings and is obviously some kind of an excuse on your
part.

Doug.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 15th 10, 06:34 PM

Doug wrote:
> On 14 July, 18:28, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 13 July, 22:41, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 11 July, 08:57, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
>>>>>>> pedestrians going about their lawful business.
>>
>>>>>> So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.
>>
>>>>> Yes but I fully understand why they feel the need to do it,
>>>>> bearing in mind that pavement cycling is extremely inconvenient
>>>>> because of all the obstacles on pavements.
>>
>>>> Riding on the pavement is illegal, no ifs, no buts. Illegal.
>>
>>> Also applies to cars illegally parked and driven on pavements. So,
>>> your point?
>>
>> It does indeed. But drivers of cars illegally parked get fined or
>> towed, drivers rarely drive on pavements, if they did, they could be
>> identified & fined. Cyclists remain unidentifiable & escape.
>>
> Drivers do not always get fined for parking/driving on pavements
> illegally. Sometimes they are so desperate to find a place to park
> their car they will take a chance and get away with it.

Have some ****ing sense will you? You live in Catford so you know full well
how motorists are persecuted by revenue hungry councils.

>>
>>>> The 'obstacles' you mention are for the benefit of pedestrians.
>>>> That they make cycling on the pavement 'inconvenient' is neither
>>>> here notr there. It is against the law - end of debate.
>>
>>> Wrong, particularly road signs are for the benefit of drivers as are
>>> traffic light posts, etc.
>>
>> But cycling on the pavement is illegal.
>>
> As can be parking and driving by motorists on pavements.

But we have established that motorists rarely do.
>>
>>>>> It might be a little safer than riding on
>>>>> the road but ignores the fact that drivers sometimes crash, drive
>>>>> or park on pavements.
>>
>>>> Rarely crash, rarely drive, occasionally park.
>>
>>> So? Do you mean that is because it is rare it doesn't matter at all?
>>
>> Yup.. You got it. Cycling on pavements is commonplace & terrifies
>> pedestrians.
>>
> Surely, because they are much more dangerous, cars must terrify
> pedestrians even more?

No because motorists rarely if ever drive on the pavement.

> Don't forget that a car can kill several people
> at once when it crashes on pavements. Impossible for a cyclist.

Ah! Now we have it. You are clearly too thick to appreciate the difference
between an accidental crash and a deliberate act.

>>
>>> If so, then cyclists killing pedestrians are even rarer so we can
>>> completely discount those.
>>
>> I'd still like the figures on the number of cyclists & their mileage
>> so we can compare accidents with miles driven. Do you have those?
>>
> I don't see your point. Motorists as a class kill many more people
> than cyclists as a class and the former are much more dangerous.

Because there are more motorists doing more miles ****wit.
>>
>>
>>>>> Even people actually inside houses are not safe
>>>>> from crashing drivers, let alone vulnerable pavement users. Don't
>>>>> forget also that a car can kill several people at once who are
>>>>> together on a pavement, something a cyclists could never do
>>
>>>> But fatalities from motorists are extemely rare events. 1 in
>>>> 120,000,000 miles drive.
>>
>>> Murders are rare too so you think they don't matter? Murders in the
>>> UK are 0.0140633 per 1,000 people or a tiny 840 for the whole
>>> population. Insignificant!
>>
>> Diversionary tactic ****wit. Stay on topic.
>>
> It is your topic. You are claiming that rare killings don't matter in
> terms of distance travelled. A principle which is not applied to other
> types of killings and is obviously some kind of an excuse on your
> part.

We are not discussing 'killings' but 'accidents'.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Doug[_3_]

July 16th 10, 06:45 AM

On 15 July, 18:34, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 14 July, 18:28, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 13 July, 22:41, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> >>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> On 11 July, 08:57, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Motorists should get off pavements too. They are a menace to
> >>>>>>> pedestrians going about their lawful business.
>
> >>>>>> So you would agree that cyclist should not ride on pavements.
>
> >>>>> Yes but I fully understand why they feel the need to do it,
> >>>>> bearing in mind that pavement cycling is extremely inconvenient
> >>>>> because of all the obstacles on pavements.
>
> >>>> Riding on the pavement is illegal, no ifs, no buts. Illegal.
>
> >>> Also applies to cars illegally parked and driven on pavements. So,
> >>> your point?
>
> >> It does indeed. But drivers of cars illegally parked get fined or
> >> towed, drivers rarely drive on pavements, if they did, they could be
> >> identified & fined. Cyclists remain unidentifiable & escape.
>
> > Drivers do not always get fined for parking/driving on pavements
> > illegally. Sometimes they are so desperate to find a place to park
> > their car they will take a chance and get away with it.
>
> Have some ****ing sense will you? *You live in Catford so you know full well
> how motorists are persecuted by revenue hungry councils.
>
I do not live in Catford.
>
>
> >>>> The 'obstacles' you mention are for the benefit of pedestrians.
> >>>> That they make cycling on the pavement 'inconvenient' is neither
> >>>> here notr there. It is against the law - end of debate.
>
> >>> Wrong, particularly road signs are for the benefit of drivers as are
> >>> traffic light posts, etc.
>
> >> But cycling on the pavement is illegal.
>
> > As can be parking and driving by motorists on pavements.
>
> But we have established that motorists rarely do.
>
Have we? I see plenty of them. Oh of course, I almost forgot that you
believe that if something illegal is done not very often it doesn't
matter, like murder for example.
>
>
> >>>>> It might be a little safer than riding on
> >>>>> the road but ignores the fact that drivers sometimes crash, drive
> >>>>> or park on pavements.
>
> >>>> Rarely crash, rarely drive, occasionally park.
>
> >>> So? Do you mean that is because it is rare it doesn't matter at all?
>
> >> Yup.. You got it. Cycling on pavements is commonplace & terrifies
> >> pedestrians.
>
> > Surely, because they are much more dangerous, cars must terrify
> > pedestrians even more?
>
> No because motorists rarely if ever drive on the pavement.
>
More of your 'rare' so iy doesn't matter?
>
> > Don't forget that a car can kill several people
> > at once when it crashes on pavements. Impossible for a cyclist.
>
> Ah! *Now we have it. *You are clearly too thick to appreciate the difference
> between an accidental crash and a deliberate act.
>
When people are killed I don't make your subtle distinctions. Choosing
to drive a dangerous machine in a public place is a deliberate act.
>
>
> >>> If so, then cyclists killing pedestrians are even rarer so we can
> >>> completely discount those.
>
> >> I'd still like the figures on the number of cyclists & their mileage
> >> so we can compare accidents with miles driven. Do you have those?
>
> > I don't see your point. Motorists as a class kill many more people
> > than cyclists as a class and the former are much more dangerous.
>
> Because there are more motorists doing more miles ****wit.
>
>
Don't you understand what 'a class' means? You are trying to make
excuses for killings in terms of distance travelled, which is
inexcusable.
>
>
> >>>>> Even people actually inside houses are not safe
> >>>>> from crashing drivers, let alone vulnerable pavement users. Don't
> >>>>> forget also that a car can kill several people at once who are
> >>>>> together on a pavement, something a cyclists could never do
>
> >>>> But fatalities from motorists are extemely rare events. 1 in
> >>>> 120,000,000 miles drive.
>
> >>> Murders are rare too so you think they don't matter? Murders in the
> >>> UK are 0.0140633 per 1,000 people or a tiny 840 for the whole
> >>> population. Insignificant!
>
> >> Diversionary tactic ****wit. Stay on topic.
>
> > It is your topic. You are claiming that rare killings don't matter in
> > terms of distance travelled. A principle which is not applied to other
> > types of killings and is obviously some kind of an excuse on your
> > part.
>
> We are not discussing 'killings' but 'accidents'.
>
Like many others I do not accept the word 'accident' in this context
because it is deliberately used to diminish blame. More neutral
'crash' or 'collision' are preferable.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Derek C

July 16th 10, 06:56 AM

On Jul 16, 6:45*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > We are not discussing 'killings' but 'accidents'.
>
> Like many others I do not accept the word 'accident' in this context
> because it is deliberately used to diminish blame. More neutral
> 'crash' or 'collision' are preferable.
>
Some accidents are just that, arising from an unfortunate combination
of circumstances, or misunderstandings, with no blame attached to any
of the parties.

Derek C

Doug[_3_]

July 16th 10, 07:10 AM

On 16 July, 06:56, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jul 16, 6:45*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > We are not discussing 'killings' but 'accidents'.
>
> > Like many others I do not accept the word 'accident' in this context
> > because it is deliberately used to diminish blame. More neutral
> > 'crash' or 'collision' are preferable.
>
> Some accidents are just that, arising from an unfortunate combination
> of circumstances, or misunderstandings, with no blame attached to any
> of the parties.
>
What you mean like loosing control of a dangerous machine in a public
place which results in another's death? Surely the person choosing to
be in charge of that machine should be held accountable? Which is
usually the case when it happens elsewhere than on a road or pavement.
Example, plane crashes due to human error or large ships crashing into
something.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

JNugent[_7_]

July 16th 10, 09:12 AM

Doug wrote:
> On 16 July, 06:56, Derek C > wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 6:45 am, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>>> We are not discussing 'killings' but 'accidents'.
>>> Like many others I do not accept the word 'accident' in this context
>>> because it is deliberately used to diminish blame. More neutral
>>> 'crash' or 'collision' are preferable.
>> Some accidents are just that, arising from an unfortunate combination
>> of circumstances, or misunderstandings, with no blame attached to any
>> of the parties.
>>
> What you mean like loosing control of a dangerous machine in a public
> place which results in another's death? Surely the person choosing to
> be in charge of that machine should be held accountable?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

It all depends on the circumstances.

It may well NOT be his/her fault.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 16th 10, 05:45 PM

Doug wrote:

>>> Drivers do not always get fined for parking/driving on pavements
>>> illegally. Sometimes they are so desperate to find a place to park
>>> their car they will take a chance and get away with it.
>>
>> Have some ****ing sense will you? You live in Catford so you know
>> full well how motorists are persecuted by revenue hungry councils.
>>
> I do not live in Catford.

OK. You exist in Catford. I wouldn't call it living either.

>>
>>>>>> The 'obstacles' you mention are for the benefit of pedestrians.
>>>>>> That they make cycling on the pavement 'inconvenient' is neither
>>>>>> here notr there. It is against the law - end of debate.
>>
>>>>> Wrong, particularly road signs are for the benefit of drivers as
>>>>> are traffic light posts, etc.
>>
>>>> But cycling on the pavement is illegal.
>>
>>> As can be parking and driving by motorists on pavements.
>>
>> But we have established that motorists rarely do.
>>
> Have we? I see plenty of them. Oh of course, I almost forgot that you
> believe that if something illegal is done not very often it doesn't
> matter, like murder for example.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> It might be a little safer than riding on
>>>>>>> the road but ignores the fact that drivers sometimes crash,
>>>>>>> drive or park on pavements.
>>
>>>>>> Rarely crash, rarely drive, occasionally park.
>>
>>>>> So? Do you mean that is because it is rare it doesn't matter at
>>>>> all?
>>
>>>> Yup.. You got it. Cycling on pavements is commonplace & terrifies
>>>> pedestrians.
>>
>>> Surely, because they are much more dangerous, cars must terrify
>>> pedestrians even more?
>>
>> No because motorists rarely if ever drive on the pavement.
>>
> More of your 'rare' so iy doesn't matter?
>>
>>> Don't forget that a car can kill several people
>>> at once when it crashes on pavements. Impossible for a cyclist.
>>
>> Ah! Now we have it. You are clearly too thick to appreciate the
>> difference between an accidental crash and a deliberate act.
>>
> When people are killed I don't make your subtle distinctions. Choosing
> to drive a dangerous machine in a public place is a deliberate act.

But they are not dangerous machines SFB's.

>>>>> If so, then cyclists killing pedestrians are even rarer so we can
>>>>> completely discount those.
>>
>>>> I'd still like the figures on the number of cyclists & their
>>>> mileage so we can compare accidents with miles driven. Do you have
>>>> those?
>>
>>> I don't see your point. Motorists as a class kill many more people
>>> than cyclists as a class and the former are much more dangerous.
>>
>> Because there are more motorists doing more miles ****wit.
>>
>>
> Don't you understand what 'a class' means? You are trying to make
> excuses for killings in terms of distance travelled, which is
> inexcusable.

No, its logical.

>>>>>>> Even people actually inside houses are not safe
>>>>>>> from crashing drivers, let alone vulnerable pavement users.
>>>>>>> Don't forget also that a car can kill several people at once
>>>>>>> who are together on a pavement, something a cyclists could
>>>>>>> never do
>>
>>>>>> But fatalities from motorists are extemely rare events. 1 in
>>>>>> 120,000,000 miles drive.
>>
>>>>> Murders are rare too so you think they don't matter? Murders in
>>>>> the UK are 0.0140633 per 1,000 people or a tiny 840 for the whole
>>>>> population. Insignificant!
>>
>>>> Diversionary tactic ****wit. Stay on topic.
>>
>>> It is your topic. You are claiming that rare killings don't matter
>>> in terms of distance travelled. A principle which is not applied to
>>> other types of killings and is obviously some kind of an excuse on
>>> your part.
>>
>> We are not discussing 'killings' but 'accidents'.
>>
> Like many others I do not accept the word 'accident' in this context
> because it is deliberately used to diminish blame. More neutral
> 'crash' or 'collision' are preferable.

Shame the rest of the world accepts the word innit?

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

July 16th 10, 05:47 PM

Doug wrote:
> On 16 July, 06:56, Derek C > wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 6:45 am, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>>> We are not discussing 'killings' but 'accidents'.
>>
>>> Like many others I do not accept the word 'accident' in this context
>>> because it is deliberately used to diminish blame. More neutral
>>> 'crash' or 'collision' are preferable.
>>
>> Some accidents are just that, arising from an unfortunate combination
>> of circumstances, or misunderstandings, with no blame attached to any
>> of the parties.
>>
> What you mean like loosing control of a dangerous machine in a public
> place which results in another's death? Surely the person choosing to
> be in charge of that machine should be held accountable?

If they are at fault yes. If they are not, then no. And the numbers prove
they are not dangerous machines. This concept only occurs in your head.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.