Yet another place where cyclists are being caused problems

[Squashme]

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cyclist_walks_free_from_ court/

“So little is there that the criminal justice system can do, the most
effective thing is to bring these proceedings to an earlier rather
than later close.

“This case falls into the lowest bracket of seriousness which the
Sentencing Guidelines Council has determined.

My powers, therefore, are constrained by statute.”

[David[_11_]]

"Squashme" > wrote in message
...

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cyclist_walks_free_from_ court/

Puts the previous post by PG into perspective somewhat.

D

[Squashme]

On 6 July, 16:15, Squashme > wrote:
> http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cycli...
>
> *“So little is there that the criminal justice system can do, the most
> effective thing is to bring these proceedings to an earlier rather
> than later close.
>
> “This case falls into the lowest bracket of seriousness which the
> Sentencing Guidelines Council has determined.
>
> My powers, therefore, are constrained by statute.”

And again:-

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/salisbury/salisburynews/8254711.Cyclist_killed_on_A303/

And again:-

http://www.chesterfirst.co.uk/news/90374/police-appeal-for-witnesses-after-cyclist-is-killed.aspx

And again:-

http://www.chad.co.uk/news/Cyclist-taken-to-hospital-after.6403707.jp

So it goes.

[JNugent[_7_]]

Squashme wrote:
> http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cyclist_walks_free_from_ court/
>
> “So little is there that the criminal justice system can do, the most
> effective thing is to bring these proceedings to an earlier rather
> than later close.
>
> “This case falls into the lowest bracket of seriousness which the
> Sentencing Guidelines Council has determined.
>
> My powers, therefore, are constrained by statute.”

He says "statute", the report in the paper says "government guidelines".

They can't both be right.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 6 July, 16:15, Squashme > wrote:
>> http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cycli...
>>
>> “So little is there that the criminal justice system can do, the most
>> effective thing is to bring these proceedings to an earlier rather
>> than later close.
>>
>> “This case falls into the lowest bracket of seriousness which the
>> Sentencing Guidelines Council has determined.
>>
>> My powers, therefore, are constrained by statute.”
>
> And again:-
>
> http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/salisbury/salisburynews/8254711.Cyclist_killed_on_A303/
>
> And again:-
>
> http://www.chesterfirst.co.uk/news/90374/police-appeal-for-witnesses-after-cyclist-is-killed.aspx
>
> And again:-
>
> http://www.chad.co.uk/news/Cyclist-taken-to-hospital-after.6403707.jp
>
> So it goes.

Haven't you twigged yet?

Nobody likes cyclists....


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

[Squashme]

On 6 July, 18:54, JNugent > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> >http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cycli...
>
> > *“So little is there that the criminal justice system can do, the most
> > effective thing is to bring these proceedings to an earlier rather
> > than later close.
>
> > “This case falls into the lowest bracket of seriousness which the
> > Sentencing Guidelines Council has determined.
>
> > My powers, therefore, are constrained by statute.”
>
> He says "statute", the report in the paper says "government guidelines".
>
> They can't both be right.

"lowest bracket of seriousness" either way, as Mirthful Henbane points
out.

[PhilO]

On Jul 6, 8:39*pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Haven't you twigged yet?
>
> Nobody likes cyclists....
>

I do (but I don't like you). Maybe you'd be more popular if you took
up cycling.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

PhilO wrote:
> On Jul 6, 8:39 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Haven't you twigged yet?
>>
>> Nobody likes cyclists....
>>
>
> I do (but I don't like you). Maybe you'd be more popular if you took
> up cycling.

I'm extremely popular thank you. If I took up cycling people would regard
be as a complete **** - like all cyclists.


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

[Doug[_3_]]

On 6 July, 16:15, Squashme > wrote:
> http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cycli...
>
> *“So little is there that the criminal justice system can do, the most
> effective thing is to bring these proceedings to an earlier rather
> than later close.
>
> “This case falls into the lowest bracket of seriousness which the
> Sentencing Guidelines Council has determined.
>
> My powers, therefore, are constrained by statute.”
>
Yet another example of a law unfair to cyclists. It should take
account of the fact that motorists can and do kill cyclists but
cyclists cannot kill motorists by colliding with them. Also that
motorists, in their heavy vehicles, can and do intimidate cyclists,
sometimes by deliberately ramming them for which they are seldom held
to account.

And then they wonder why scared cyclists choose to ride on pavements.

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

[JNugent[_7_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 6 July, 16:15, Squashme > wrote:
>> http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cycli...
>>
>> “So little is there that the criminal justice system can do, the most
>> effective thing is to bring these proceedings to an earlier rather
>> than later close.
>>
>> “This case falls into the lowest bracket of seriousness which the
>> Sentencing Guidelines Council has determined.
>>
>> My powers, therefore, are constrained by statute.”
>>
> Yet another example of a law unfair to cyclists. It should take
> account of the fact that motorists can and do kill cyclists but
> cyclists cannot kill motorists by colliding with them. Also that
> motorists, in their heavy vehicles, can and do intimidate cyclists,
> sometimes by deliberately ramming them for which they are seldom held
> to account.
>
> And then they wonder why scared cyclists choose to ride on pavements.

That's probably because no-one is interested in the pathetic excuses given by
arrogant people (who couldn't care less about pedestrians) on the odd
occasion when they are caught.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 6 July, 16:15, Squashme > wrote:
>> http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cycli...
>>
>> “So little is there that the criminal justice system can do, the most
>> effective thing is to bring these proceedings to an earlier rather
>> than later close.
>>
>> “This case falls into the lowest bracket of seriousness which the
>> Sentencing Guidelines Council has determined.
>>
>> My powers, therefore, are constrained by statute.”
>>
> Yet another example of a law unfair to cyclists. It should take
> account of the fact that motorists can and do kill cyclists but
> cyclists cannot kill motorists by colliding with them. Also that
> motorists, in their heavy vehicles, can and do intimidate cyclists,
> sometimes by deliberately ramming them for which they are seldom held
> to account.
>
> And then they wonder why scared cyclists choose to ride on pavements.


We all know why cyclists ride on pavements. Because they are arrogant
****bags who think they are above the law - and because they are unregulated
they know they can get away with it.


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

[Doug[_3_]]

On 11 July, 15:53, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 6 July, 16:15, Squashme > wrote:
> >>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cycli....
>
> >> “So little is there that the criminal justice system can do, the most
> >> effective thing is to bring these proceedings to an earlier rather
> >> than later close.
>
> >> “This case falls into the lowest bracket of seriousness which the
> >> Sentencing Guidelines Council has determined.
>
> >> My powers, therefore, are constrained by statute.”
>
> > Yet another example of a law unfair to cyclists. It should take
> > account of the fact that motorists can and do kill cyclists but
> > cyclists cannot kill motorists by colliding with them. Also that
> > motorists, in their heavy vehicles, can and do intimidate cyclists,
> > sometimes by deliberately ramming them for which they are seldom held
> > to account.
>
> > And then they wonder why scared cyclists choose to ride on pavements.
>
> We all know why cyclists ride on pavements. *Because they are arrogant
> ****bags who think they are above the law - and because they are unregulated
> they know they can get away with it.
>
That must be the same reason that motorists frequently park and drive
on pavements.

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

[mileburner]

Doug wrote:
> On 11 July, 15:53, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>> We all know why cyclists ride on pavements. Because they are arrogant
>> ****bags who think they are above the law - and because they are
>> unregulated they know they can get away with it.
>>
> That must be the same reason that motorists frequently park and drive
> on pavements.

I suspect that much of the reason that cyclists ride on the pavement is that
they have a misguided sense of courtesy to drivers and that they are simply
too chicken to use the road properly.

Going by TMH's past diatribe, I thought that the "arrogant ****bags" are
those of us who position themselves in a safe and proper road position thus
putting their own safety before the good progress of drivers who disregard
it.

I guess in the land of Medway, cyclists are seen as arrogant whatever they
do :-)

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 11 July, 15:53, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 6 July, 16:15, Squashme > wrote:
>>>> http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cycli...
>>
>>>> “So little is there that the criminal justice system can do, the
>>>> most effective thing is to bring these proceedings to an earlier
>>>> rather than later close.
>>
>>>> “This case falls into the lowest bracket of seriousness which the
>>>> Sentencing Guidelines Council has determined.
>>
>>>> My powers, therefore, are constrained by statute.”
>>
>>> Yet another example of a law unfair to cyclists. It should take
>>> account of the fact that motorists can and do kill cyclists but
>>> cyclists cannot kill motorists by colliding with them. Also that
>>> motorists, in their heavy vehicles, can and do intimidate cyclists,
>>> sometimes by deliberately ramming them for which they are seldom
>>> held to account.
>>
>>> And then they wonder why scared cyclists choose to ride on
>>> pavements.
>>
>> We all know why cyclists ride on pavements. Because they are arrogant
>> ****bags who think they are above the law - and because they are
>> unregulated they know they can get away with it.
>>
> That must be the same reason that motorists frequently park and drive
> on pavements.

If a motorist drove or parked on a pavement (except where it was
permissable) he would be fined for doing so. The vehicle has a registration
plate and the driver can be traced. Cyclists are completely unregulated and
cannot be easily traced.


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

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

mile****** wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 11 July, 15:53, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> We all know why cyclists ride on pavements. Because they are
>>> arrogant ****bags who think they are above the law - and because
>>> they are unregulated they know they can get away with it.
>>>
>> That must be the same reason that motorists frequently park and drive
>> on pavements.
>
> I suspect that much of the reason that cyclists ride on the pavement
> is that they have a misguided sense of courtesy to drivers and that
> they are simply too chicken to use the road properly.
>
> Going by TMH's past diatribe, I thought that the "arrogant ****bags"
> are those of us who position themselves in a safe and proper road
> position thus putting their own safety before the good progress of
> drivers who disregard it.

Arrogant ****bags of course applies equally to both. A cyclists place is on
the road, in the gutter out of the way.

> I guess in the land of Medway, cyclists are seen as arrogant whatever
> they do :-)

Its nationwide. Cyclists are despised the length & breadth of the country.


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

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

mile****** wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 11 July, 15:53, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> We all know why cyclists ride on pavements. Because they are
>>> arrogant ****bags who think they are above the law - and because
>>> they are unregulated they know they can get away with it.
>>>
>> That must be the same reason that motorists frequently park and drive
>> on pavements.
>
> I suspect that much of the reason that cyclists ride on the pavement
> is that they have a misguided sense of courtesy to drivers and that
> they are simply too chicken to use the road properly.
>
> Going by TMH's past diatribe, I thought that the "arrogant ****bags"
> are those of us who position themselves in a safe and proper road
> position thus putting their own safety before the good progress of
> drivers who disregard it.

Arrogant ****bags of course applies equally to both. A cyclists place is on
the road, in the gutter out of the way.

> I guess in the land of Medway, cyclists are seen as arrogant whatever
> they do :-)

Its nationwide. Cyclists are despised the length & breadth of the country.


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

[Doug[_3_]]

On 12 July, 18:24, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> mile****** wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> >> On 11 July, 15:53, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> >> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> We all know why cyclists ride on pavements. Because they are
> >>> arrogant ****bags who think they are above the law - and because
> >>> they are unregulated they know they can get away with it.
>
> >> That must be the same reason that motorists frequently park and drive
> >> on pavements.
>
> > I suspect that much of the reason that cyclists ride on the pavement
> > is that they have a misguided sense of courtesy to drivers and that
> > they are simply too chicken to use the road properly.
>
> > Going by TMH's past diatribe, I thought that the "arrogant ****bags"
> > are those of us who position themselves in a safe and proper road
> > position thus putting their own safety before the good progress of
> > drivers who disregard it.
>
> Arrogant ****bags of course applies equally to both. *A cyclists place is on
> the road, in the gutter out of the way.
>
> > I guess in the land of Medway, cyclists are seen as arrogant whatever
> > they do :-)
>
> Its nationwide. *Cyclists are despised the length & breadth of the country.
>
I am please that you confirm the level of discrimination shown against
cyclists in the UK, due no doubt to the dominance of the car culture
which brooks no impediments to its perceived right to pass and repass
regardless and usually at unsafe speeds.

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

[Doug[_3_]]

On 12 July, 18:21, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 11 July, 15:53, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 6 July, 16:15, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8236961.Driver_who_killed_cycli....
>
> >>>> “So little is there that the criminal justice system can do, the
> >>>> most effective thing is to bring these proceedings to an earlier
> >>>> rather than later close.
>
> >>>> “This case falls into the lowest bracket of seriousness which the
> >>>> Sentencing Guidelines Council has determined.
>
> >>>> My powers, therefore, are constrained by statute.”
>
> >>> Yet another example of a law unfair to cyclists. It should take
> >>> account of the fact that motorists can and do kill cyclists but
> >>> cyclists cannot kill motorists by colliding with them. Also that
> >>> motorists, in their heavy vehicles, can and do intimidate cyclists,
> >>> sometimes by deliberately ramming them for which they are seldom
> >>> held to account.
>
> >>> And then they wonder why scared cyclists choose to ride on
> >>> pavements.
>
> >> We all know why cyclists ride on pavements. Because they are arrogant
> >> ****bags who think they are above the law - and because they are
> >> unregulated they know they can get away with it.
>
> > That must be the same reason that motorists frequently park and drive
> > on pavements.
>
> If a motorist drove or parked on a pavement (except where it was
> permissable) he would be fined for doing so.
>
Only if caught. Sometimes they are just given a warning and told to
move. Motorists are notorious for bad or illegal parking and they also
obstruct dropped kerbs making it difficult for the disabled in wheel
chairs.
>
>*The vehicle has a registration
> plate and the driver can be traced. *Cyclists are completely unregulated and
> cannot be easily traced.
>
Nevertheless cyclists are sometimes caught and given an on-the-spot
fine.

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

[mileburner]

Doug wrote:
> On 12 July, 18:24, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess in the land of Medway, cyclists are seen as arrogant
>>> whatever they do :-)
>>
>> Its nationwide. Cyclists are despised the length & breadth of the
>> country.
>>
> I am please that you confirm the level of discrimination shown against
> cyclists in the UK, due no doubt to the dominance of the car culture
> which brooks no impediments to its perceived right to pass and repass
> regardless and usually at unsafe speeds.

Don't believe it. It is only a small minority who think like this. Usually
they are lower class and lower intelligence, but they have bettered
themselves to a point where they can drive and think that itself is a great
achievement.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 12 July, 18:24, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> mile****** wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 11 July, 15:53, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> We all know why cyclists ride on pavements. Because they are
>>>>> arrogant ****bags who think they are above the law - and because
>>>>> they are unregulated they know they can get away with it.
>>
>>>> That must be the same reason that motorists frequently park and
>>>> drive on pavements.
>>
>>> I suspect that much of the reason that cyclists ride on the pavement
>>> is that they have a misguided sense of courtesy to drivers and that
>>> they are simply too chicken to use the road properly.
>>
>>> Going by TMH's past diatribe, I thought that the "arrogant ****bags"
>>> are those of us who position themselves in a safe and proper road
>>> position thus putting their own safety before the good progress of
>>> drivers who disregard it.
>>
>> Arrogant ****bags of course applies equally to both. A cyclists
>> place is on the road, in the gutter out of the way.
>>
>>> I guess in the land of Medway, cyclists are seen as arrogant
>>> whatever they do :-)
>>
>> Its nationwide. Cyclists are despised the length & breadth of the
>> country.
>>
> I am please that you confirm the level of discrimination shown against
> cyclists in the UK, due no doubt to the dominance of the car culture
> which brooks no impediments to its perceived right to pass and repass
> regardless and usually at unsafe speeds.

Its nothing to do with the "dominance of the car culture" idiot. Its
because cyclists are anti social, law breaking, freeloading scum.


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

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

mileburner wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 12 July, 18:24, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess in the land of Medway, cyclists are seen as arrogant
>>>> whatever they do :-)
>>>
>>> Its nationwide. Cyclists are despised the length & breadth of the
>>> country.
>>>
>> I am please that you confirm the level of discrimination shown
>> against cyclists in the UK, due no doubt to the dominance of the car
>> culture which brooks no impediments to its perceived right to pass
>> and repass regardless and usually at unsafe speeds.
>
> Don't believe it. It is only a small minority who think like this.

Swimming in Egypt again mole******?

> Usually they are lower class and lower intelligence, but they have
> bettered themselves to a point where they can drive and think that
> itself is a great achievement.

Been reading the Daily Mail again?

What a tosser you are.


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

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
>>>>> And then they wonder why scared cyclists choose to ride on
>>>>> pavements.
>>
>>>> We all know why cyclists ride on pavements. Because they are
>>>> arrogant ****bags who think they are above the law - and because
>>>> they are unregulated they know they can get away with it.
>>
>>> That must be the same reason that motorists frequently park and
>>> drive on pavements.
>>
>> If a motorist drove or parked on a pavement (except where it was
>> permissable) he would be fined for doing so.
>>
> Only if caught. Sometimes they are just given a warning and told to
> move.

Ha ha ha ha ha! On which planet?

> Motorists are notorious for bad or illegal parking and they also
> obstruct dropped kerbs making it difficult for the disabled in wheel
> chairs.

Porkies.

>>
>> The vehicle has a registration
>> plate and the driver can be traced. Cyclists are completely
>> unregulated and cannot be easily traced.
>>
> Nevertheless cyclists are sometimes caught and given an on-the-spot
> fine.

All pigs fed & ready to fly.


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

[Doug[_3_]]

On 16 July, 07:41, "mileburner" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 12 July, 18:24, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> I guess in the land of Medway, cyclists are seen as arrogant
> >>> whatever they do :-)
>
> >> Its nationwide. Cyclists are despised the length & breadth of the
> >> country.
>
> > I am please that you confirm the level of discrimination shown against
> > cyclists in the UK, due no doubt to the dominance of the car culture
> > which brooks no impediments to its perceived right to pass and repass
> > regardless and usually at unsafe speeds.
>
> Don't believe it. It is only a small minority who think like this. Usually
> they are lower class and lower intelligence, but they have bettered
> themselves to a point where they can drive and think that itself is a great
> achievement.
>
Why do you call that 'bettering' themselves? Surely congesting,
polluting and presenting a serious hazard to others is no kind of
achievement, quite the reverse. Unless, of course, you mean just in
terms of the amount of money they posses to buy a status car, which is
no big deal and nothing to brag about if they are doing it on the
never never. Besides, status cars are usually the most polluting
anyway.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

[mileburner]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 July, 07:41, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > On 12 July, 18:24, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I guess in the land of Medway, cyclists are seen as arrogant
>> >>> whatever they do :-)
>>
>> >> Its nationwide. Cyclists are despised the length & breadth of the
>> >> country.
>>
>> > I am please that you confirm the level of discrimination shown against
>> > cyclists in the UK, due no doubt to the dominance of the car culture
>> > which brooks no impediments to its perceived right to pass and repass
>> > regardless and usually at unsafe speeds.
>>
>> Don't believe it. It is only a small minority who think like this.
>> Usually
>> they are lower class and lower intelligence, but they have bettered
>> themselves to a point where they can drive and think that itself is a
>> great
>> achievement.
>>
> Why do you call that 'bettering' themselves? Surely congesting,
> polluting and presenting a serious hazard to others is no kind of
> achievement, quite the reverse. Unless, of course, you mean just in
> terms of the amount of money they posses to buy a status car, which is
> no big deal and nothing to brag about if they are doing it on the
> never never. Besides, status cars are usually the most polluting
> anyway.

To be fair, it takes a certain amount of time, effort, money to get a
drivers licence and if you are particularly thick and poor, getting one is
quite an acheivement.

TMH is a prime example.

It's not really a status symbol, and neither is an expensive car, but in
their minds it is.

[Derek C]

On Jul 17, 6:48*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 16 July, 07:41, "mileburner" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 12 July, 18:24, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> > > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >>> I guess in the land of Medway, cyclists are seen as arrogant
> > >>> whatever they do :-)
>
> > >> Its nationwide. Cyclists are despised the length & breadth of the
> > >> country.
>
> > > I am please that you confirm the level of discrimination shown against
> > > cyclists in the UK, due no doubt to the dominance of the car culture
> > > which brooks no impediments to its perceived right to pass and repass
> > > regardless and usually at unsafe speeds.
>
> > Don't believe it. It is only a small minority who think like this. Usually
> > they are lower class and lower intelligence, but they have bettered
> > themselves to a point where they can drive and think that itself is a great
> > achievement.
>
> Why do you call that 'bettering' themselves? Surely congesting,
> polluting and presenting a serious hazard to others is no kind of
> achievement, quite the reverse. Unless, of course, you mean just in
> terms of the amount of money they posses to buy a status car, which is
> no big deal and nothing to brag about if they are doing it on the
> never never. Besides, status cars are usually the most polluting
> anyway.
>

So therefore we can conclude that Doug is a poor person of low social
status, who doesn't like to see anybody else doing well in life.
Politics of Envy!

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:

>> Why do you call that 'bettering' themselves? Surely congesting,
>> polluting and presenting a serious hazard to others is no kind of
>> achievement, quite the reverse. Unless, of course, you mean just in
>> terms of the amount of money they posses to buy a status car, which
>> is no big deal and nothing to brag about if they are doing it on the
>> never never. Besides, status cars are usually the most polluting
>> anyway.
>>
>
> So therefore we can conclude that Doug is a poor person of low social
> status, who doesn't like to see anybody else doing well in life.
> Politics of Envy!

Err, no. The logic does not follow.

We can conclude from the above that Doug sees car usage as a negative thing.
Running a car is also so cheap nowadays that anyone can afford them. From
spotty 17 year olds to single parents on benefits. Car ownership is not a
sign of wealth.

[Derek C]

On Jul 17, 1:26*pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> >> Why do you call that 'bettering' themselves? Surely congesting,
> >> polluting and presenting a serious hazard to others is no kind of
> >> achievement, quite the reverse. Unless, of course, you mean just in
> >> terms of the amount of money they posses to buy a status car, which
> >> is no big deal and nothing to brag about if they are doing it on the
> >> never never. Besides, status cars are usually the most polluting
> >> anyway.
>
> > So therefore we can conclude that Doug is a poor person of low social
> > status, who doesn't like to see anybody else doing well in life.
> > Politics of Envy!
>
> Err, no. The logic does not follow.
>
> We can conclude from the above that Doug sees car usage as a negative thing.
> Running a car is also so cheap nowadays that anyone can afford them. From
> spotty 17 year olds to single parents on benefits. Car ownership is not a
> sign of wealth.

Spotty 17 year olds might not be able to afford to insure them and
have them properly serviced though!

[JNugent[_7_]]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jul 17, 1:26 pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>>> Why do you call that 'bettering' themselves? Surely congesting,
>>>> polluting and presenting a serious hazard to others is no kind of
>>>> achievement, quite the reverse. Unless, of course, you mean just in
>>>> terms of the amount of money they posses to buy a status car, which
>>>> is no big deal and nothing to brag about if they are doing it on the
>>>> never never. Besides, status cars are usually the most polluting
>>>> anyway.
>>> So therefore we can conclude that Doug is a poor person of low social
>>> status, who doesn't like to see anybody else doing well in life.
>>> Politics of Envy!
>> Err, no. The logic does not follow.
>>
>> We can conclude from the above that Doug sees car usage as a negative thing.
>> Running a car is also so cheap nowadays that anyone can afford them. From
>> spotty 17 year olds to single parents on benefits. Car ownership is not a
>> sign of wealth.
>
> Spotty 17 year olds might not be able to afford to insure them and
> have them properly serviced though!

Almost no "spotty 17 year olds" (aside from the obvious exceptions of rich
orphans with trust funds) can afford a car of any description.

The "affording" would invariably be being done by others.

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jul 17, 1:26 pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>>> Why do you call that 'bettering' themselves? Surely congesting,
>>>> polluting and presenting a serious hazard to others is no kind of
>>>> achievement, quite the reverse. Unless, of course, you mean just in
>>>> terms of the amount of money they posses to buy a status car, which
>>>> is no big deal and nothing to brag about if they are doing it on
>>>> the never never. Besides, status cars are usually the most
>>>> polluting anyway.
>>
>>> So therefore we can conclude that Doug is a poor person of low
>>> social status, who doesn't like to see anybody else doing well in
>>> life. Politics of Envy!
>>
>> Err, no. The logic does not follow.
>>
>> We can conclude from the above that Doug sees car usage as a
>> negative thing. Running a car is also so cheap nowadays that anyone
>> can afford them. From spotty 17 year olds to single parents on
>> benefits. Car ownership is not a sign of wealth.
>
> Spotty 17 year olds might not be able to afford to insure them and
> have them properly serviced though!

So they don't bother or get their parents to. Either way, car ownership and
the ability to drive are (in terms of status), one step higher than owning a
mobile phone, and probably several steps lower than owning an expensive or
unusual bicycle.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

mileburner wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 16 July, 07:41, "mileburner" > wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 12 July, 18:24, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I guess in the land of Medway, cyclists are seen as arrogant
>>>>>> whatever they do :-)
>>>
>>>>> Its nationwide. Cyclists are despised the length & breadth of the
>>>>> country.
>>>
>>>> I am please that you confirm the level of discrimination shown
>>>> against cyclists in the UK, due no doubt to the dominance of the
>>>> car culture which brooks no impediments to its perceived right to
>>>> pass and repass regardless and usually at unsafe speeds.
>>>
>>> Don't believe it. It is only a small minority who think like this.
>>> Usually
>>> they are lower class and lower intelligence, but they have bettered
>>> themselves to a point where they can drive and think that itself is
>>> a great
>>> achievement.
>>>
>> Why do you call that 'bettering' themselves? Surely congesting,
>> polluting and presenting a serious hazard to others is no kind of
>> achievement, quite the reverse. Unless, of course, you mean just in
>> terms of the amount of money they posses to buy a status car, which
>> is no big deal and nothing to brag about if they are doing it on the
>> never never. Besides, status cars are usually the most polluting
>> anyway.
>
> To be fair, it takes a certain amount of time, effort, money to get a
> drivers licence and if you are particularly thick and poor, getting
> one is quite an acheivement.

To be fair, it takes no amount of time, effort or money to get a Tufty Club
cycling proficiency badge. If you are particularly thick and poor, getting
one is quite an acheivement

Mole****** is a prime example.

Of course if you are particularly thick, you would believe a push bike is
actually a viable form of transport.

Mole****** is a prime example.


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

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

mole****** wrote:

and probably several steps lower
> than owning an expensive or unusual bicycle.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Only an overgrown schoolboy could possible think that!

Now Mole******. I realise thinking makes your head hurt and you aren't used
to it, but try very hard to think about that.

I'll give you some help. The majority of people regard cyclists as
immature, irresposible sponging ****s. Its nationwide.


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

[Doug[_3_]]

On 17 July, 13:26, "mileburner" > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> >> Why do you call that 'bettering' themselves? Surely congesting,
> >> polluting and presenting a serious hazard to others is no kind of
> >> achievement, quite the reverse. Unless, of course, you mean just in
> >> terms of the amount of money they posses to buy a status car, which
> >> is no big deal and nothing to brag about if they are doing it on the
> >> never never. Besides, status cars are usually the most polluting
> >> anyway.
>
> > So therefore we can conclude that Doug is a poor person of low social
> > status, who doesn't like to see anybody else doing well in life.
> > Politics of Envy!
>
> Err, no. The logic does not follow.
>
> We can conclude from the above that Doug sees car usage as a negative thing.
>
Yes that is why I gave up driving. It was too shameful and guilt
ridden. I felt really bad about poisoning babies in prams on pavements
with my exhaust, contributing to congestion, leaving my car lying
around as an obstruction on public roads and suffering all the stress
that motoring brings.
>
> Running a car is also so cheap nowadays that anyone can afford them. From
> spotty 17 year olds to single parents on benefits. Car ownership is not a
> sign of wealth.
>
Very true. Motoring has probably never been as cheap as now. It may
have started out only being available to the wealthy but a lot has
changed since then and as more and more cars are inflicted on our
roads it must follow that motoring is getting ever cheaper in relation
to earnings. It also follows that those here who bleat on about the
costs of motoring must be very close to poverty but because of their
addictive car dependent lifestyles can do little about it.

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