School bicycle shed crammed with bikes.

JMS wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:10:32 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:.

Oh. BTW. Its leased to give me the maximum tax advantage as an
allowable
business expense. Even more practical & intelligent.


So what do you drive the rest of the time? I do hope you are not
fiddling your taxes and are paying the appropriate benefit in kind
tax for private use of a business supplied vehicle and fuel.

Of course he fiddles his tax.

He is a scummy trader - from a scummy estate.

Cash-in-hand means no tax and plenty of welfare.




I like the way that you debate these points : so grown up and mature.

Desperation sets in when intellectual ability fails. Mole****** has clearly
run out of arguments & realised that he keeps making a prat of himself.
Abuse is his only resort.


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

On 8 Oct, 20:18, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:36:37 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"

wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:.

Oh. *BTW. *Its leased to give me the maximum tax advantage as an
allowable
business expense. *Even more practical & intelligent.

So what do you drive the rest of the time? *I do hope you are not
fiddling your taxes and are paying the appropriate benefit in kind tax
for private use of a business supplied vehicle and fuel.

Vauxhall Corsa owned by my missus.

So you're halfway to obtaining your dream of being a *true cyclist*,
as defined by Doug. You don't actually own a motor vehicle.

I wouldn't say halfway even. If he regularly and mainly uses a car at
all then he is just a "pretend cyclist". After all, we all know what
motorists think of cyclists don't we. This newsgroup is evidence
enough.

Doug.

Marc wrote:

The only reason I open his rants because they are so amusing.

They were, originally. But the repetitiveness of his stupidity became
boring.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 8 Oct, 20:18, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:36:37 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"

wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:.

Oh. BTW. Its leased to give me the maximum tax advantage as an
allowable
business expense. Even more practical & intelligent.

So what do you drive the rest of the time? I do hope you are not
fiddling your taxes and are paying the appropriate benefit in kind tax
for private use of a business supplied vehicle and fuel.

Vauxhall Corsa owned by my missus.

So you're halfway to obtaining your dream of being a *true cyclist*,
as defined by Doug. You don't actually own a motor vehicle.

I wouldn't say halfway even. If he regularly and mainly uses a car at
all then he is just a "pretend cyclist". After all, we all know what
motorists think of cyclists don't we. This newsgroup is evidence
enough.

********.


--
Paul - xxx

mobile ...

Paul - xxx wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

I wouldn't say halfway even. If he regularly and mainly uses a car at
all then he is just a "pretend cyclist". After all, we all know what
motorists think of cyclists don't we. This newsgroup is evidence
enough.

********.

It would be interesting to know what motorists on the whole think of
cyclists. I find that in casual conversation views are quite polarised. On
one hand drivers respect us because they realise we are more vulnerable, on
the other hand there are those who think we are fair game to harrass and
intimidate.

But as a general rule on the roads, I find that most drivers pass wide,
drive courteously and offer mutual respect. It is only a very few who drive
as if they have an issue with cyclists get too close, pass too close and
generally drive as if they have had no training. Ironically, these tend to
be taxi drivers, van drivers, pick up drivers and those who are likely to
spend more time driving.

A cycling group is likely to attract those who do not cycle, but they have
issues about cycling. Hence we get rants from Medway, Cheerfull and the
dreaded JMS (not forgetting nuxxy but he only seems to pop in now and then,
under (yet another) fake ID, has a pop at Guy and then clears off again).
The others tend to be a lot more obsessed with cycling as a whole.
Therefore, the views on this group tend to be rather skewed from the norm.

On 9 Oct, 07:55, "mileburner" wrote:
Paul - xxx wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

I wouldn't say halfway even. If he regularly and mainly uses a car at
all then he is just a "pretend cyclist". After all, we all know what
motorists think of cyclists don't we. This newsgroup is evidence
enough.

********.

It would be interesting to know what motorists on the whole think of
cyclists. I find that in casual conversation views are quite polarised. On
one hand drivers respect us because they realise we are more vulnerable, on
the other hand there are those who think we are fair game to harrass and
intimidate.

No they don't respect us. They sometimes merely take care in our
presence because of the risk to their insurance premium and the
possibility of prosecution. Those that don't take care can always use
the excuse that the vulnerable victim was to blame, which their
insurance company will support energetically, as will some of the
police who themselves are motorists..

But as a general rule on the roads, I find that most drivers pass wide,
drive courteously and offer mutual respect. It is only a very few who drive
as if they have an issue with cyclists get too close, pass too close and
generally drive as if they have had no training. Ironically, these tend to
be taxi drivers, van drivers, pick up drivers and those who are likely to
spend more time driving.

See above.

A cycling group is likely to attract those who do not cycle, but they have
issues about cycling. Hence we get rants from Medway, Cheerfull and the
dreaded JMS (not forgetting nuxxy but he only seems to pop in now and then,
under (yet another) fake ID, has a pop at Guy and then clears off again).
The others tend to be a lot more obsessed with cycling as a whole.
Therefore, the views on this group tend to be rather skewed from the norm.

You don't say? It reads more like a motoring group than a cycling
group.

Doug.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 9 Oct, 07:55, "mileburner" wrote:
Paul - xxx wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

I wouldn't say halfway even. If he regularly and mainly uses a car at
all then he is just a "pretend cyclist". After all, we all know what
motorists think of cyclists don't we. This newsgroup is evidence
enough.

********.

It would be interesting to know what motorists on the whole think of
cyclists. I find that in casual conversation views are quite polarised.
On
one hand drivers respect us because they realise we are more vulnerable,
on
the other hand there are those who think we are fair game to harrass and
intimidate.

No they don't respect us. They sometimes merely take care in our
presence because of the risk to their insurance premium and the
possibility of prosecution. Those that don't take care can always use
the excuse that the vulnerable victim was to blame, which their
insurance company will support energetically, as will some of the
police who themselves are motorists..

Utter Bull****.

--
Paul - xxx

mobile ...

On 09/10/2010 07:55, mileburner wrote:
Paul - xxx wrote:
wrote in message

I wouldn't say halfway even. If he regularly and mainly uses a car at
all then he is just a "pretend cyclist". After all, we all know what
motorists think of cyclists don't we. This newsgroup is evidence
enough.

********.

It would be interesting to know what motorists on the whole think of
cyclists. I find that in casual conversation views are quite polarised. On
one hand drivers respect us because they realise we are more vulnerable, on
the other hand there are those who think we are fair game to harrass and
intimidate.

But as a general rule on the roads, I find that most drivers pass wide,
drive courteously and offer mutual respect. It is only a very few who drive
as if they have an issue with cyclists get too close, pass too close and
generally drive as if they have had no training. Ironically, these tend to
be taxi drivers, van drivers, pick up drivers and those who are likely to
spend more time driving.

A cycling group is likely to attract those who do not cycle, but they have
issues about cycling. Hence we get rants from Medway, Cheerfull and th
dreaded JMS (not forgetting nuxxy but he only seems to pop in now and then,
under (yet another) fake ID, has a pop at Guy and then clears off again).
The others tend to be a lot more obsessed with cycling as a whole.
Therefore, the views on this group tend to be rather skewed from the norm.



I have no problems with 'most' cyclists.
Yes they may hold me up sometimes, but so do buses, dustcarts, etc.
I treat all road users the same, that is I don't put them in danger &
try to be courteous (although with some road users this can be difficult)

I do have issues with bad cycling, like the idiot who jumped a red light
at Waterloo yesterday & cycled between me & a man pushing a baby buggy,
we were on the crossing with the green man showing. The other 20 or so
cyclists seemed happy to wait until the red had changed.

The problem is that the few bad cyclists give a bad image for all
cyclists, it is the same for motorists.

It also does cycling no favours by the idiots who say you can not be a
cyclists unless you never use another form of transport.





--
Tony Dragon

On 09/10/2010 08:08, Doug wrote:
On 9 Oct, 07:55, wrote:
Paul - xxx wrote:
wrote in message

I wouldn't say halfway even. If he regularly and mainly uses a car at
all then he is just a "pretend cyclist". After all, we all know what
motorists think of cyclists don't we. This newsgroup is evidence
enough.

********.

It would be interesting to know what motorists on the whole think of
cyclists. I find that in casual conversation views are quite polarised. On
one hand drivers respect us because they realise we are more vulnerable, on
the other hand there are those who think we are fair game to harrass and
intimidate.

No they don't respect us.

Most people respect most road users, it's only in you small brain that
anything else happens.

They sometimes merely take care in our
presence because of the risk to their insurance premium and the
possibility of prosecution.

So every time I see a cyclist, all I see is the risk of prosecution or
increase of by insurance, what utter crap.

Those that don't take care can always use
the excuse that the vulnerable victim was to blame,

Those to blame are the one who are blameworthy, simple as that.

which their
insurance company will support energetically,

Insurance companies are businesses, no businesses like outlay.

as will some of the
police who themselves are motorists.

You have this strange idea that people can only be on thing.


But as a general rule on the roads, I find that most drivers pass wide,
drive courteously and offer mutual respect. It is only a very few who drive
as if they have an issue with cyclists get too close, pass too close and
generally drive as if they have had no training. Ironically, these tend to
be taxi drivers, van drivers, pick up drivers and those who are likely to
spend more time driving.

See above.

A cycling group is likely to attract those who do not cycle, but they have
issues about cycling. Hence we get rants from Medway, Cheerfull and the
dreaded JMS (not forgetting nuxxy but he only seems to pop in now and then,
under (yet another) fake ID, has a pop at Guy and then clears off again).
The others tend to be a lot more obsessed with cycling as a whole.
Therefore, the views on this group tend to be rather skewed from the norm.

You don't say? It reads more like a motoring group than a cycling
group.

Doug.

I don't see much motoring being discussed here.

--
Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:

I do have issues with bad cycling, like the idiot who jumped a red light
at Waterloo yesterday & cycled between me & a man pushing a baby buggy,
we were on the crossing with the green man showing. The other 20 or so
cyclists seemed happy to wait until the red had changed.

Yesterday going from Russell Square into Bernard St I had to cycle round
the LGV sat blocking the box junction on a red light and then had to
deal with lots of pedestrians crossing on a red man.


The problem is that the few bad cyclists give a bad image for all
cyclists, it is the same for motorists.


Its not about image.

Only the latter cause any significant amount of death or serious injury.
In fact in London, motorists killed or seriously injured 1,055
pedestrians and 433 cyclists last year. That's about ten times the
number of people killed and seriously injured in the 7/7 bombings to put
it in perspective. About a quarter of those pedestrians were killed or
seriously injured on a pedestrian crossing and about 10% on the
pavement. You would struggle to find anyone killed or seriously injured
by a cyclist in London despite all the bluster here.

So the big difference is cyclists may annoy you but its almost certainly
only motorists who are going to kill or seriously injure you. That
asymmetry is the reason to focus on motorists getting their own house in
order before they start criticizing the minor annoyances of some
cyclists. Yet look at all the motorists here with their criticism
campaigns unwilling to accept the beams in their own eyes. Why do they
do it? Trying to assuage their own guilt by blaming someone else?

Tony