two-wheeled scum murdering pedestrians again

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:21:48 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 11/04/2011 21:17, Front Mech wrote:
On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway
wrote:
On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to pay
VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay Road Tax
and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on public roads.

The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band has
rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?

Road Tax has been altered to pacify the Green lobby & raise extra
revenue. It has **** all to do with CO2 emissions. If it did, pre 1973
cars wouldn't be exempt would they?

And why should cyclists pay Road Tax?

IFYPFY.

Because they use 'Roads'.

Last time you said they used pavements.

Make your mind up!

On Apr 12, 12:21*am, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 11/04/2011 21:17, Front Mech wrote:

On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway
wrote:
On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to pay
VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay Road Tax
and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on public roads..
The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band has
rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?

Road Tax has been altered to pacify the Green lobby & raise extra
revenue. *It has **** all to do with CO2 emissions. *If it did, pre 1973
cars wouldn't be exempt would they?

You mean that drivers of pre 1973 cars pay no "road tax"?

Does that make them freeloading scum?

--
Simon Mason

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:21:48 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 11/04/2011 21:17, Front Mech wrote:
On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway
wrote:
On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to pay
VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay Road Tax
and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on public roads.

The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band has
rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?

Road Tax has been altered to pacify the Green lobby & raise extra
revenue. It has **** all to do with CO2 emissions. If it did, pre 1973
cars wouldn't be exempt would they?

And why should cyclists pay Road Tax?

IFYPFY.

Because they use 'Roads'.


He appears to be that stupid - it could be Simple posting under a different name.

--
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
A total disreagrd for the well-being of vulnerable road users.

On Apr 12, 10:44*am, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:21:48 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:





On 11/04/2011 21:17, Front Mech wrote:
On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway
wrote:
On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to pay
VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay Road Tax
and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on public roads.

The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band has
rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?

Road Tax has been altered to pacify the Green lobby & raise extra
revenue. *It has **** all to do with CO2 emissions. *If it did, pre 1973
cars wouldn't be exempt would they?

And why should cyclists pay Road Tax?

IFYPFY.

Because they use 'Roads'.

He appears to be that stupid - it could be Simple posting under a different name.

-- * * *
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
A total disreagrd for the *well-being of vulnerable road users.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A total disreagrd (sic)?

--
Simon Mason

On Apr 12, 1:17*am, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 11/04/2011 21:18, Front Mech wrote:









On 11 apr, 18:58, The Medway
wrote:
On 11/04/2011 06:11, Front Mech wrote:

Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.

You attribute a motive or reason to Simon's behavior. Upon what is
this based?

A total disreagrd for the *well-being of vulnerable road users.

It is possible to drive or cycle at 25 mph with regard to other road
users. Not every motorist who breaks the speed limit is immediately
charged with careless, reckless or dangerous driving. In Simon's case
there is no speed limit. How do you know he disregarded the well-being
of vulnerable road users?

If the limit is 20 mph for cars there will be a good reason for it. *To
cycle at above that speed shows a total disregard for the safety of
others, particularly as a push bike is unstable under heavy braking&
cannot stop efficiently.

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In what way is a bicycle unstable under heavy braking?

Just how thick are you?

Speed Camera Statistics, Facts& Figures

The following is a selection of speeding related facts, figures and
statistics.

Speed camera offences 1996 - 262,000

Speed camera offences 2006 - 1,865,000

This is a 700% increase.

Thats a 352% increase ****wit.

Not so thick that I am not able to calculate simple percentages: how
did you ever think that this was an increase of 352%. I know i am all
right if I am being categorized as thick by you.

Car; Four tyres roughly 150mm wide, servo, ABS.
Push bike; Two tyres roughly 25mm wide.
Unfortunately the only research online shows the stopping distance of
a bicycle to be less than that of a car travelling at a similar speed.
no research into stability. One has to conclude that you confuse
repeating a statement with providing support for it. You remain a
moron. You remain a moron.

On Apr 12, 11:44*am, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:21:48 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:









On 11/04/2011 21:17, Front Mech wrote:
On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway
wrote:
On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to pay
VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay Road Tax
and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on public roads.

The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band has
rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?

Road Tax has been altered to pacify the Green lobby & raise extra
revenue. *It has **** all to do with CO2 emissions. *If it did, pre 1973
cars wouldn't be exempt would they?

And why should cyclists pay Road Tax?

IFYPFY.

Because they use 'Roads'.

He appears to be that stupid - it could be Simple posting under a different name.

-- * * *
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
You got a quotation for Simon giving that as a reason?

Road Tax has been altered to pacify the Green lobby & raise extra
revenue. *It has **** all to do with CO2 emissions.
Except that the bands are drectly related to the measured emissions of
the car in question (source: the government's own documentation). But
apart from that, absolutely **** all.


*If it did, pre 1973 cars wouldn't be exempt would they?
Yes: they are classic cars and travel a minute number of miles per
year. They are almost never used for commuting - most classic car
insurance policies exclude this and limit the number of miles per
year. Commuting and driving in heavy traffic is the most polluting use
of a car. These cars will also have been taxed for many years.
And why should cyclists pay Road Tax?

IFYPFY.

Because they use 'Roads'.
There is no road tax. It is VED. how thick are you?

On Apr 12, 4:25*pm, Front Mech wrote:
-- * * *
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.

You got a quotation for Simon giving that as a reason?- Hide quoted text -

JMS made it up, of course. I ride at 20mph plus down 20mph zones so as
not to "hold up" any following traffic. JMS is annoyed a) because I
can outrun a car that would otherwise be sounding its horn at me and
b) I am not breaking any laws in doing so. All that matters to JMS is
that she has a straw to clutch at when she tries to find a tiny chink
to attack me with, however small. She can then flog it to death for
years like the Lou Knee international incident of biblical
proportions.

--
Simon Mason

On 12/04/2011 16:32, Front Mech wrote:

Road Tax has been altered to pacify the Green lobby& raise extra
revenue. It has **** all to do with CO2 emissions.

Except that the bands are drectly related to the measured emissions of
the car in question (source: the government's own documentation).

No they aren't. The band is not related to measured emissions at all.

For all bands you pay the full amount, even if you don't emit any CO2.

In band A you paying nothing regardless of how much CO2 you emit.

But
apart from that, absolutely **** all.

Precisely, it is by band, not be emissions. The bands are set, not on
how much you emit, but by the theoretical potential of your engine /to/
emit - a rating.

--
Matt B

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:24:28 -0700 (PDT), Front Mech wrote:

snip


Unfortunately the only research online shows the stopping distance of
a bicycle to be less than that of a car travelling at a similar speed.


Yes of course it does.

We all believe you.

It's odd that you did not actually quote that "research" or give a link to it.

I wonder why?