Unlit cyclist attacks motorist with bicycle

"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/04/2015 11:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you don't
have a car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...
...ah yes, sponging.

Cyclists should do the same.

A person on a bicycle is not a car in front. That is an efficient use
of
the taxes I pay for my car.

In what way do your taxes flow to the cyclist?

What an odd question. Not having a car in front is of benefits me when I
am in my car.

Perhaps you ought to move to the Highlands of Scotland or some similar
remote region. There, you would be in receipt of unlimited benefits.

Indeed. But outweighed by other disadvantages.

But what has *tax* got to do

The way the government spends it. People doing fewer short journeys in cars
has the capacity to be a benefit to all if done properly.

with whether there is a car (moving at 30mph)
or a cyclist (moving at 12mph) in front of you?

It's not about cars doing 30mph - it's about cars' habit of
spending a lot of time doing 0-5mph. Anyway, the cyclist at 12mph is rarely
in front long enough to affect journey time.

Could you "improve" that imaginary benefit if your taxes were increased?
Would the situation change for the worse if your taxes were reduced?

Careful... Suggesting an increase in taxes is like inviting a junkie to
burgle your house.

What matters most about tax is how it is spent. Yes, I am sure the tax
already being collected could be spent in a better way.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 18:10, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 18:00, Bod wrote:
On 22/04/2015 17:39, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 11:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you
don't
have a
car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...

...ah yes, sponging.

Cyclists should do the same.

A person on a bicycle is not a car in front. That is an efficient
use of
the taxes I pay for my car.

In what way do your taxes flow to the cyclist?

What an odd question. Not having a car in front is of benefits me when
I am
in my car.


Far worse to have cyclist in front doing 12mph, or if going up a slight
incline, 8mph.


Have you not mastered how to overtake yet?

You mean "safely overtake"?

In which case, yes.

When overtaking a dangerously slow and unstable vehicle, susceptible to
violent direction changes due to slight winds or minor road
imperfections - in other words, a push bike - you have to be very
careful.

Otherwise they whinge endlessly about wanting a 3 metre safety space.


Do you have the same problem overtaking a horse?

A horse is not classed as a road vehicle, a child's toy is.
A horse and rider are treated with respect and admiration. A cyclist is
treated as being a piece of ****, which they are.
A horse and the rider will almost certainly carry 3rd party liability
insurance. A cyclist will almost certainly not.
The rider of the horse will be competent to ride on the public highway. A
cyclist is not.
It is forbidden by law to ride a horse on the footpath. Horse riders do not
ride on the footpath. Cyclists do ride on the footpath.
I could go on.
It seems very obvious that a horse is more respected and law abiding than a
cyclist.
This shows what a load of ******s cyclists really are.

On 22/04/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/04/2015 11:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you don't
have a car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...
...ah yes, sponging.

Cyclists should do the same.

A person on a bicycle is not a car in front. That is an efficient use
of the taxes I pay for my car.

In what way do your taxes flow to the cyclist?

What an odd question. Not having a car in front is of benefits me when I
am in my car.

Perhaps you ought to move to the Highlands of Scotland or some similar
remote region. There, you would be in receipt of unlimited benefits.

Indeed. But outweighed by other disadvantages.

So this particular "benefit" isn't all that?

But what has *tax* got to do

The way the government spends it. People doing fewer short journeys in cars
has the capacity to be a benefit to all if done properly.

What is this magic spending which removes a car from in front of you
wherever you go?

with whether there is a car (moving at 30mph)
or a cyclist (moving at 12mph) in front of you?

It's not about cars doing 30mph - it's about cars' habit of
spending a lot of time doing 0-5mph. Anyway, the cyclist at 12mph is rarely
in front long enough to affect journey time.

Could you "improve" that imaginary benefit if your taxes were increased?
Would the situation change for the worse if your taxes were reduced?

Careful... Suggesting an increase in taxes is like inviting a junkie to
burgle your house.
What matters most about tax is how it is spent. Yes, I am sure the tax
already being collected could be spent in a better way.

Perhaps.

But I'm intrigued by this interesting current spending which you say
removes cars from the position just in front of your car.

How does it work?

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:48:24 +0100, Mr Pounder
wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...

[ a snip!]

Do you have the same problem overtaking a horse?

A horse is not classed as a road vehicle, a child's toy is.
A horse and rider are treated with respect and admiration. A cyclist is
treated as being a piece of ****, which they are.
A horse and the rider will almost certainly carry 3rd party liability
insurance. A cyclist will almost certainly not.
The rider of the horse will be competent to ride on the public highway. A
cyclist is not.
It is forbidden by law to ride a horse on the footpath. Horse riders do
not
ride on the footpath. Cyclists do ride on the footpath.
I could go on.
It seems very obvious that a horse is more respected and law abiding
than a
cyclist.
This shows what a load of ******s cyclists really are.

Tell me more about this "rational thought" that you once had.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

On 22/04/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/04/2015 11:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you don't
have a car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...
...ah yes, sponging.

Cyclists should do the same.

A person on a bicycle is not a car in front. That is an efficient use
of
the taxes I pay for my car.

In what way do your taxes flow to the cyclist?

What an odd question. Not having a car in front is of benefits me when I
am in my car.

Perhaps you ought to move to the Highlands of Scotland or some similar
remote region. There, you would be in receipt of unlimited benefits.

Indeed. But outweighed by other disadvantages.

But what has *tax* got to do

The way the government spends it. People doing fewer short journeys in cars
has the capacity to be a benefit to all if done properly.

Slight snag. people don't want to.

with whether there is a car (moving at 30mph)
or a cyclist (moving at 12mph) in front of you?

It's not about cars doing 30mph - it's about cars' habit of
spending a lot of time doing 0-5mph. Anyway, the cyclist at 12mph is rarely
in front long enough to affect journey time.

But they and their ridiculous cycle lanes and ASLs hold up tax paying
drivers & cause pollution.

Could you "improve" that imaginary benefit if your taxes were increased?
Would the situation change for the worse if your taxes were reduced?

Careful... Suggesting an increase in taxes is like inviting a junkie to
burgle your house.

What matters most about tax is how it is spent. Yes, I am sure the tax
already being collected could be spent in a better way.


I agree. The £46 billion paid by motorists should be spent on roads -
as was the original concept.

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

On 22/04/2015 18:42, Bod wrote:
On 22/04/2015 18:10, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 18:00, Bod wrote:
On 22/04/2015 17:39, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 11:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you
don't
have a
car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...

...ah yes, sponging.

Cyclists should do the same.

A person on a bicycle is not a car in front. That is an efficient
use of
the taxes I pay for my car.

In what way do your taxes flow to the cyclist?

What an odd question. Not having a car in front is of benefits me when
I am
in my car.


Far worse to have cyclist in front doing 12mph, or if going up a slight
incline, 8mph.


Have you not mastered how to overtake yet?

You mean "safely overtake"?

In which case, yes.

When overtaking a dangerously slow and unstable vehicle, susceptible to
violent direction changes due to slight winds or minor road
imperfections - in other words, a push bike - you have to be very
careful.

Otherwise they whinge endlessly about wanting a 3 metre safety space.



Do you have the same problem overtaking a horse?

Nice try, no cigar.

(1) There are very few equestrians on our roads, compared to the
thousands of road lice cyclists.
(2) People like horses and hate cyclists.



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

On 22/04/2015 19:48, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2015 18:10, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 18:00, Bod wrote:
On 22/04/2015 17:39, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 11:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you
don't
have a
car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...

...ah yes, sponging.

Cyclists should do the same.

A person on a bicycle is not a car in front. That is an efficient
use of
the taxes I pay for my car.

In what way do your taxes flow to the cyclist?

What an odd question. Not having a car in front is of benefits me when
I am
in my car.


Far worse to have cyclist in front doing 12mph, or if going up a slight
incline, 8mph.


Have you not mastered how to overtake yet?

You mean "safely overtake"?

In which case, yes.

When overtaking a dangerously slow and unstable vehicle, susceptible to
violent direction changes due to slight winds or minor road
imperfections - in other words, a push bike - you have to be very
careful.

Otherwise they whinge endlessly about wanting a 3 metre safety space.


Do you have the same problem overtaking a horse?

A horse is not classed as a road vehicle, a child's toy is.

Very true.

A horse and rider are treated with respect and admiration. A cyclist is
treated as being a piece of ****, which they are.

Please don't be unfair to ****.

A horse and the rider will almost certainly carry 3rd party liability
insurance. A cyclist will almost certainly not.

Other than fridge freezer cover.

The rider of the horse will be competent to ride on the public highway. A
cyclist is not.

Very true.

It is forbidden by law to ride a horse on the footpath. Horse riders do not
ride on the footpath. Cyclists do ride on the footpath.

Horse riders don't jump red lights either.

I could go on.
It seems very obvious that a horse is more respected and law abiding than a
cyclist.
This shows what a load of ******s cyclists really are.






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

On 22/04/2015 20:27, Phil W Lee wrote:
Scion considered Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:01:10 +0000
(UTC) the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard:

Scion considered Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:54:43 +0000
(UTC) the perfect time to write:

JNugent put finger to keyboard:

On 20/04/2015 03:26, Phil W Lee wrote:

Only non-motorised vehicles, equestrians, and pedestrians enjoy a
right-of-way on public highways, and as a right, it cannot be charged
for or made conditional...

That was absolute 100% proof tripe.

Parliament can do what they like. There was a time when there was no
such thing as a driving licence, road tax or registration for motor
vehicles, and what was done in respect of those things for them could
be done in respect of bicycles just as easily.

Unless, of course, you know of some over-arching piece of legislation
(preferably one over which some super-national jurisdiction applies)
which means that Parliament would be prevented from legislating,
M'Lud.

Over to you.

FX: eery silence.

I've pointed out to Mr. Lee in the past that people *have* been banned
from cycling on public highways.

Googling _asbo bicycle_ or similar will throw up instances of people
being banned from cycling on certain roads, banned from cycling
altogether, even banned from touching bikes.

I've no idea why he continues to insist that it can't happen.

Find me an example of someone being prosecuted for doing so, not some
example of what a magistrate thought he could impose.

Which would prove what, exactly?

That the terms as stated by the magistrates in such cases are
unenforceable.

"A cyclist has been hit with an ASBO that has banned him from riding in
parts of Leicester after he waged a violent seven-year campaign of
attacks on pedestrians in the city. Gurnaik Singh Dogra randomly kicked
and punched pedestrians as he rode past them.

As per the recent court order, Dogra, 37, can be again arrested and
possibly jailed if he is caught riding or even pushing his bike through
certain streets in the town."

Which part of "court order" and "can be again arrested and possibly
jailed if he is caught riding" didn't you understand, halfwit?



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

On 22/04/2015 22:21, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:48:24 +0100, Mr Pounder
wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...

[ a snip!]

Do you have the same problem overtaking a horse?

A horse is not classed as a road vehicle, a child's toy is.
A horse and rider are treated with respect and admiration. A cyclist is
treated as being a piece of ****, which they are.
A horse and the rider will almost certainly carry 3rd party liability
insurance. A cyclist will almost certainly not.
The rider of the horse will be competent to ride on the public highway. A
cyclist is not.
It is forbidden by law to ride a horse on the footpath. Horse riders
do not
ride on the footpath. Cyclists do ride on the footpath.
I could go on.
It seems very obvious that a horse is more respected and law abiding
than a
cyclist.
This shows what a load of ******s cyclists really are.

Tell me more about this "rational thought" that you once had.


Are you able to counter Mr Pounder's arguments with a rational reply?

Or is a feeble ad hominem the best you can do?


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

On 22/04/2015 22:24, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 18:42, Bod wrote:
On 22/04/2015 18:10, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 18:00, Bod wrote:
On 22/04/2015 17:39, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 11:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you
don't
have a
car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...

...ah yes, sponging.

Cyclists should do the same.

A person on a bicycle is not a car in front. That is an efficient
use of
the taxes I pay for my car.

In what way do your taxes flow to the cyclist?

What an odd question. Not having a car in front is of benefits me
when
I am
in my car.


Far worse to have cyclist in front doing 12mph, or if going up a
slight
incline, 8mph.


Have you not mastered how to overtake yet?

You mean "safely overtake"?

In which case, yes.

When overtaking a dangerously slow and unstable vehicle, susceptible to
violent direction changes due to slight winds or minor road
imperfections - in other words, a push bike - you have to be very
careful.

Otherwise they whinge endlessly about wanting a 3 metre safety space.



Do you have the same problem overtaking a horse?

Nice try, no cigar.

(1) There are very few equestrians on our roads, compared to the
thousands of road lice cyclists.
(2) People like horses and hate cyclists.



There are no cyclist haters around here. People just act courteously
with each other. You must live in a rough area. I've never encountered a
problem on the roads whether I'm driving or riding my bike in this neck
of the woods.