Who gets your vote?

On Wed, 05 May 2010 18:58:51 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:22:29 +0100, "Trevor A Panther"
wrote:

Cycling is a minority pastime though.
Really?
I think you'll find that there are more cyclists in this country than
drivers
Total tripe. piffle and balderdash. There may be more bikes around rusting
in sheds but don't be so silly!

I think that you will find that the answer depends on the definition
of 'cyclist'.

If you define a cyclist as someone who can legally ride a bike and can
do so without routinely falling off, I expect there are more cyclists
than motorists.

That wopuld include people who rode bikes as children but no longer own or
have access to one.

Not a convincing definition.

Are you more convinced by Doug's definition?

Or do you, like me, think that the definition lies somewhere between
the two extremes?

On that basis, most vegans would be carnivores.

However, Doug has a different definition: someone who doesn't own or
drive a motor vehicle and uses a bike as their primary means of
transport. If that is the case, then I expect that there are more
motorists than cyclists.

Phil W Lee wrote:
ash considered Tue, 4 May 2010 14:57:01
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On 4 May, 21:52, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:28:23 +0100, Jim A
wrote:

On 05/04/2010 07:29 PM, Tom Crispin wrote:
Based on this, who would you vote for?

NOTA

I think that I prefer a non-response to an insincere "We are happy
to sign up to this."

Cycling is a minority pastime though.

Really?
I think you'll find that there are more cyclists in this country than
drivers.

Really? Simple Simon once tried claiming that - and failed. Got any
figures of are you making stuff up again?

Pandering to the minorities is a
slippery slope which breed malcontent amongst the majority of the
voting public.

Indeed, that why we are getting so ****ed off with the way that cars
have been allowed to dominate roads.

The majority of the public are not ****ed off. Cars dominate roads because
motorists pay for them.

I take it that the Conservatives were just not available, or didn't
return the questionnaire to illicit this form of derision from the
knitters ?

They couldn't be arsed to reply to a bunch of ******s more like.


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

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:22:29 +0100, "Trevor A Panther"
wrote:

Cycling is a minority pastime though.

Really?
I think you'll find that there are more cyclists in this country
than drivers

Total tripe. piffle and balderdash. There may be more bikes around
rusting in sheds but don't be so silly!

I think that you will find that the answer depends on the definition
of 'cyclist'.

If you define a cyclist as someone who can legally ride a bike and can
do so without routinely falling off, I expect there are more cyclists
than motorists.

I can legally ride a bike without falling off, but I haven't done so since I
was a kid - I grew up.


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

JNugent wrote:


You are wrong. It is DEFINITELY an option, whether in a voting booth or
when voting by post. I have been to a couple of election counts - and
there are always some - a few - ballot papers with either no markings on
them at all (counted for "none of the above candidates") or with other
messages or markings incribed on them. None of the latter are ever counted.

So you have two separate "NOTA" options when you go into the booth.

Exactly. In fact, spoiling a paper has the additional effect that the
papers aren't automatically counted as spoilt by the tellers - they are
shown to the candidates and agents at the count first - so any message
you put on it will be read by them.

Another wheeze is to write your message entirely within the box next to
one candidate - technically it should count as a vote for that candidate
but if it's suitably derogatory it could have them all arguing about it
for ages...

--
Andrew

On 05/05/2010 08:52 PM, The Medway Handyman wrote:
I can legally ride a bike without falling off, but I haven't done so since I
was a kid - I grew up.

Shame!

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 01:17:15 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:28:23 +0100, Jim A
wrote:

On 05/04/2010 07:29 PM, Tom Crispin wrote:
Based on this, who would you vote for?

NOTA

I think that I prefer a non-response to an insincere "We are happy
to sign up to this."

My take on the four responses is;

Conservative; "Oh FFS its those minority cycling ******s again
trying to spend taxpayers money like no tommorrow - throw that
rubbish in the bin".

Labour; "Tell them anything if it gets their votes".

Greens; "Goody goody, someone else who lives in a fantasy world,
lets agree - it won't matter, we will never gain any power anyway".

Lib Dem; "Whatever you want, we are doing it anyway because we don't
have any policies".

This is really very good, Medway, and probably pretty much spot on.
You waste your talents with too much profanity.

Its not profanity, its the way normal people use the English language. For
example, its much more descriptive to use the term '******' which conveys
contempt perfectly.

In your latter comments, which I have snipped, I think that you can
add to the list of things that Mr and Mrs Average want: children that
are healthy and are able to travel to and from school safely.

Both of which are entirely possible without cycling. In fact cycling to
school would be more dangerous than walking or going on the bus.


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

On Wed, 5 May 2010 21:01:46 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Both of which are entirely possible without cycling. In fact cycling to
school would be more dangerous than walking or going on the bus.

What is it that makes cycling to school so dangerous? It wouldn't be
all those people driving their children to school because the roads
are too dangerous for cycling, would it?

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 21:01:46 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Both of which are entirely possible without cycling. In fact
cycling to school would be more dangerous than walking or going on
the bus.

What is it that makes cycling to school so dangerous? It wouldn't be
all those people driving their children to school because the roads
are too dangerous for cycling, would it?

No, it would be that roads are designed for motor vehicles (because Road Tax
pays for them) and push bikes are not a viable form of transport in the 21st
century.

Of course someone who tows a clearly overloaded bike trailer through rush
hour traffic & across busy junctions is hardly in a position to comment on
road safety.


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

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 05 May 2010 18:58:51 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:22:29 +0100, "Trevor A Panther"
wrote:

Cycling is a minority pastime though.
Really?
I think you'll find that there are more cyclists in this country than
drivers
Total tripe. piffle and balderdash. There may be more bikes around rusting
in sheds but don't be so silly!
I think that you will find that the answer depends on the definition
of 'cyclist'.

If you define a cyclist as someone who can legally ride a bike and can
do so without routinely falling off, I expect there are more cyclists
than motorists.
That wopuld include people who rode bikes as children but no longer own or

have access to one.

Not a convincing definition.

Are you more convinced by Doug's definition?

No.

And I didn't see any need to say so.

Tom Crispin wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

Both of which are entirely possible without cycling. In fact cycling to
school would be more dangerous than walking or going on the bus.

What is it that makes cycling to school so dangerous? It wouldn't be
all those people driving their children to school because the roads
are too dangerous for cycling, would it?

Cycling to school is OK for teachers (fat chance in most cases) and senior
pupils, but young children cannot realistically be expected to internalise
and adhere to the rules of the road. It's what being a child means.

I'd have thought that this was fairly obvious.