|
Quote:
totally unworkable. Incidentally, many pedestrians would argue fiercely with your assertion that cyclists are no danger to others. In London cyclists are loathed more intensely by pedestrians than by motorists. |
NB4L production buses
On 27/07/2013 10:01, Robin9 wrote:
Incidentally, many pedestrians would argue fiercely with your assertion that cyclists are no danger to others. In London cyclists are loathed more intensely by pedestrians than by motorists. Lots of people suffer from bizarre and irrational loathing for other people. I find it is generally best to just ignore such people and get on with my life. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Quote:
|
NB4L production buses
On 28/07/2013 09:50, Robin9 wrote:
Arthur Figgis;138080 Wrote: On 27/07/2013 10:01, Robin9 wrote: - Incidentally, many pedestrians would argue fiercely with your assertion that cyclists are no danger to others. In London cyclists are loathed more intensely by pedestrians than by motorists.- Lots of people suffer from bizarre and irrational loathing for other people. I find it is generally best to just ignore such people and get on with my life. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK The authentic attitude of a London cyclist! Everyone else is out of step, not me! So is irrational loathing the "authentic attitude" of London non-cyclists - or just idiots? What about when the very same cyclists are driving, or the motorists are cycling, or if they are all using the dangleway? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
NB4L production buses
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:50:57 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote: On 26/07/2013 10:59, d wrote: There is also the risk a charge could backfire. If cyclists did pay, you could kiss goodbye to demanding they use cycle lanes or stay in the gutter. In that case they'd be stopped by the police and issued with a fixed penalty. And whats more I'd insist cyclists had some sort of formal training before they're allowed on B roads and above. If they want to potter about in their own backstreets fine, but if they want to ride on a numbered road they need a license. Don't forget pedestrians. Even /children/ are allowed to go pretty much where they want at the moment, with no tax, training or government permit whatsoever. Using stupid analogies just makes you look like an ass. Some people can ride bicycles faster than the max speed of some mopeds. When all pedestrians are running down the street 10mph faster than Usain Bolt and are carrying sharp bits of metal out in front of them then maybe we can talk about them requiring licenses you ****ing idiot. -- Spud |
Quote:
illegally on pavements crashing into them. Nor do they like it when the cyclist refuses to apologise. Disliking such people and such behavior is not "irrational loathing" at all. When a cyclist is driving a motor vehicle, he is not at that moment a cyclist. When a motorist is cycling, he is a that moment a cyclist, and if he behaves as so many cyclists in London do behave, then he too will be resented by pedestrians. |
NB4L production buses
On 29/07/2013 18:03, Robin9 wrote:
Arthur Figgis;138085 Wrote: On 28/07/2013 09:50, Robin9 wrote:- Arthur Figgis;138080 Wrote:- On 27/07/2013 10:01, Robin9 wrote: - Incidentally, many pedestrians would argue fiercely with your assertion that cyclists are no danger to others. In London cyclists are loathed more intensely by pedestrians than by motorists.- Lots of people suffer from bizarre and irrational loathing for other people. I find it is generally best to just ignore such people and get on with my life. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK- The authentic attitude of a London cyclist! Everyone else is out of step, not me!- So is irrational loathing the "authentic attitude" of London non-cyclists - or just idiots? What about when the very same cyclists are driving, or the motorists are cycling, or if they are all using the dangleway? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK You persist in missing the point. Pedestrians do not enjoy cyclists driving illegally on pavements crashing into them. (driving or riding?) Um, does anyone enjoy that? It's never happened to me, but I assume it is no fun - especially for the cyclist, who is liable to come off worse in a collision. I suspect pedestrians might be even less happy with motorists doing it, as it can prove fatal. However I'm not sure what this has to do with anything; in general, most people disapprove of people committing offences. Plenty of cyclists don't approve of idiots illegally riding on the pavement - not least because it seems to encourage the thicker sort of "get orrf my road" motorist to think /all/ cyclists should be on the pavement. Nor do they like it when the cyclist refuses to apologise. Disliking such people and such behavior is not "irrational loathing" at all. So is it sensible to loathe tram passengers because a non-zero number are angry racists? When a cyclist is driving a motor vehicle, he is not at that moment a cyclist. So if a pedestrian decides to hire a Boris Bike on the spur of the moment, does he then loathe himself, or does it become a task for other people? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
NB4L production buses
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:32:23 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote: In that case they'd be stopped by the police and issued with a fixed penalty. On what basis? Are you really saying people should have to pay to use a bicycle but then be banned from making use of the roads?! All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to demand they go away from you. And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads and other drivers they should pay for the priviledge. Once they do then they can whinge and bitch as much as they like, until then they can - to use an americanism - talk to the hand. Some people can ride bicycles faster than the max speed of some mopeds. When all pedestrians are running down the street 10mph faster than Usain Bolt and are carrying sharp bits of metal out in front of them then maybe we can talk about them requiring licenses you ****ing idiot. If you are a road user, get help. The world might well be a better place with you out of circulation, but it would be a shame if you harmed anyone else in the process. Your analogy was shot down in flames and thats your bail out speech? Do try a bit harder. -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 23:52:17 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote: Nor do they like it when the cyclist refuses to apologise. Disliking such people and such behavior is not "irrational loathing" at all. So is it sensible to loathe tram passengers because a non-zero number are angry racists? If about 50% of people who got on trams starting mouthing off or generally causing a nuisance then people WOULD think there was something odd about people who ride trams. At least 50% of the time when I see a cyclist either in my car or when walking I'll see them break rules in some way. Usually by riding through a red light if they can get away with it. -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:07:09 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to demand they go away from you. And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads and other drivers they should pay for the priviledge. Once again - do you apply that to the drivers of older cars, low-emission cars and to disabled drivers? After all - none of them pay VED, either. |
NB4L production buses
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:42:34PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:
The cyclists aren't usually causing a safety risk to other road users. They mostly cause safety risks to themselves*, but also cause safety risks to pedestrians. I remember with great fondness the time that the Critical Mass thugs breezed through a red light and tried to run over me and my blind mother as we were crossing the road. The only good Critical Masser is one that is in a cell. * for the ****wits in the audience, safety failures hardly ever have a single cause. Yes, drivers also cause those risks, but IME of actual and near accidents, yer average cyclist who is involved in an accident is more at fault, and even if they aren't at fault, they're still the ones who, when **** goes wrong, suffer the most. Therefore it behooves them to do the most to mitigate the risk. -- David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire I caught myself pulling grey hairs out of my beard. I'm definitely not going grey, but I am going vain. |
NB4L production buses
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 01:25:43PM +0000, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:53:49 +0100, David Cantrell wrote: There are bicycles out there on which the purchaser would pay a considerably higher amount of VAT than they could on a new car. Really? There exists a bicycle with a price tag over a million quid? You're not very bright, are you? Now now, no name-calling please. Here's a clue. What I _actually_ said equates to some expensive bicycles cost more than some cheap new cars. If that were the case then you would have said "... than they would on a new car". Instead you said "... than they could on a new car". One letter difference. But we all make mistakes sometimes. -- David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club" |
NB4L production buses
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:17:34 +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
There are bicycles out there on which the purchaser would pay a considerably higher amount of VAT than they could on a new car. Really? There exists a bicycle with a price tag over a million quid? You're not very bright, are you? Now now, no name-calling please. It was more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than name-calling. The other conclusion is that you're being deliberately obtuse in a vain attempt to score some vacuous point. Which? Here's a clue. What I _actually_ said equates to some expensive bicycles cost more than some cheap new cars. If that were the case then you would have said "... than they would on a new car". Instead you said "... than they could on a new car". One letter difference. Umm, no. Because they're very different things. I can't imagine the kind of person who buys a £10k roadbike then buying a new Cit C1 or Dacia, so "would" does not apply. But they could have. |
NB4L production buses
|
NB4L production buses
On 30/07/2013 13:11, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:42:34PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote: The cyclists aren't usually causing a safety risk to other road users. They mostly cause safety risks to themselves*, but also cause safety risks to pedestrians. I remember with great fondness the time that the Critical Mass thugs breezed through a red light and tried to run over me and my blind mother as we were crossing the road. The only good Critical Masser is one that is in a cell. * for the ****wits in the audience, safety failures hardly ever have a single cause. Yes, drivers also cause those risks, but IME of actual and near accidents, yer average cyclist who is involved in an accident is more at fault, and even if they aren't at fault, they're still the ones who, when **** goes wrong, suffer the most. Therefore it behooves them to do the most to mitigate the risk. But how far should they go - should they drive instead? Or ride on the pavement, which lowers the risk of _serious_ injuries to someone, at the increased(?) risk of _minor_ injuries - as well as being illegal and massively antisocial? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
NB4L production buses
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:07:09 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote: All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to demand they go away from you. And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads and other drivers they should pay for the priviledge. Once again - do you apply that to the drivers of older cars, low-emission cars and to disabled drivers? After all - none of them pay VED, either. I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made an exception to VED, the answer being no. Apart from the disabled since their lives are hard enough already. -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:12:21 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote: On 30/07/2013 11:07, d wrote: On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:32:23 +0100 Arthur Figgis wrote: In that case they'd be stopped by the police and issued with a fixed penalty. On what basis? Are you really saying people should have to pay to use a bicycle but then be banned from making use of the roads?! All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to demand they go away from you. And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads and other drivers they should pay for the priviledge. Once they do then they can whinge and bitch as much as they like, until then they can - to use an americanism - talk to the hand. It doesn't seem to be cyclists I hear moaning... You must have cloth ears then. Every other week there's some shrieking crustie on the TV or local radio saying "something must be done!" about cycling deaths in London. I know - how about cyclists learn to use their ****ing eyes and common sense and don't go up the inside of a truck or bus turning left! You never know, it might just work. -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:03:13 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to demand they go away from you. And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads and other drivers they should pay for the priviledge. Once again - do you apply that to the drivers of older cars, low-emission cars and to disabled drivers? After all - none of them pay VED, either. I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made an exception to VED, the answer being no. Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about paying VED enhancing priority. B'sides, they aren't an exception to VED, since all still need to possess and display a valid disc, with MOT (where applicable) and insurance needed in order to obtain one. It's just that the cost for that disc happens to be zero. |
NB4L production buses
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:12:11 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
Every other week there's some shrieking crustie on the TV or local radio saying "something must be done!" about cycling deaths in London. I know - how about cyclists learn to use their ****ing eyes and common sense and don't go up the inside of a truck or bus turning left! Whilst I disagree with much of what you say, you are _absolutely_ bang on the money with the need for cyclists to ride defensively and intelligently. |
NB4L production buses
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:53:33 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:03:13 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote: I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made an exception to VED, the answer being no. Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about paying VED enhancing priority. Oh well, I misread it in that case. B'sides, they aren't an exception to VED, since all still need to possess and display a valid disc, with MOT (where applicable) and insurance needed in order to obtain one. It's just that the cost for that disc happens to be zero. Personally I'd dispense with the tax disc altogether and do what they do in most of europe - require you to display an insurance and/or MOT equiv sticker somewhere on the vehicle - bikes included. Any tax money lost by the treasury they can easily recoup from fuel sales. -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:32:28 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made an exception to VED, the answer being no. Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about paying VED enhancing priority. Oh well, I misread it in that case. Care to answer it, though? |
NB4L production buses
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 06:42:55PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 30/07/2013 13:11, David Cantrell wrote: for the ****wits in the audience, safety failures hardly ever have a single cause. Yes, drivers also cause those risks, but IME of actual and near accidents, yer average cyclist who is involved in an accident is more at fault, and even if they aren't at fault, they're still the ones who, when **** goes wrong, suffer the most. Therefore it behooves them to do the most to mitigate the risk. But how far should they go - should they drive instead? Or ride on the pavement, which lowers the risk of _serious_ injuries to someone,at the increased(?) risk of _minor_ injuries - as well as being illegal and massively antisocial? They should ride with awareness of their surroundings, consideration for other road users, and stick to the rules of the road. It's a sorry state of affairs when, on my walk from home to the station (which is all on suburban roads, with one road crossing) I have to spend more time looking out for cyclists than for all motorised vehicles put together. That's despite there being orders of magnitude more motorised vehicles, moving faster, and which, were one to run into me, would hurt a lot more. The reason I have to be more careful about cyclists is that a far larger proportion of cyclists are inconsiderate oblivious arseholes. -- David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig Only some sort of ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get rid of Routemasters -- Ken Livingstone, four years before he got rid of 'em |
NB4L production buses
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:16:00PM +0000, Adrian wrote:
Umm, no. Because they're very different things. I can't imagine the kind of person who buys a ??10k roadbike then buying a new Cit C1 or Dacia I can. I can imagine that someone who can afford to blow 10 grand on a bike which is only a tiny little bit better than a much cheaper bike can do all kinds of things. After all, they're the sort of person who has plenty of money to spend unwisely. -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic You may now start misinterpreting what I just wrote, and attacking that misinterpretation. |
NB4L production buses
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:00:52 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:32:28 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote: I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made an exception to VED, the answer being no. Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about paying VED enhancing priority. Oh well, I misread it in that case. Care to answer it, though? I don't think I mentioned "VED enhancing priority" whatever that means in english. I think I simply said bikes should pay road tax if the rider wishes to ride on numbered roads. Is that too complex for you? -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:08 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made an exception to VED, the answer being no. Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about paying VED enhancing priority. Oh well, I misread it in that case. Care to answer it, though? I don't think I mentioned "VED enhancing priority" whatever that means in english. I think I simply said bikes should pay road tax if the rider wishes to ride on numbered roads. Is that too complex for you? Not at all. Quite the opposite, I think. Either you fail to understand my question or you are trying hard to avoid answering it. I shall explain. You think cyclists should not be able to use certain roads since they do not pay to use the roads. Right? Therefore paying conveys enhanced priority. Right? (If it helps clear up what I suspect is the cause of confusion, then I don't mean "priority" in a Give Way sense, but in the more general sense. Importance. Relevance. Whatever word you may prefer.) Is the question clearer to you now? Do people in cars who have not paid VED (ie older cars, low emission cars, disabled drivers) sit on the same perceived "normal" level of priority as other drivers, or the perceived lower level as cyclists, in your view? |
Quote:
obfuscate like that. An entire post consisting of irrelevant gibberish designed solely to divert the argument away from its central theme. |
NB4L production buses
On 31/07/2013 13:09, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 06:42:55PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 30/07/2013 13:11, David Cantrell wrote: for the ****wits in the audience, safety failures hardly ever have a single cause. Yes, drivers also cause those risks, but IME of actual and near accidents, yer average cyclist who is involved in an accident is more at fault, and even if they aren't at fault, they're still the ones who, when **** goes wrong, suffer the most. Therefore it behooves them to do the most to mitigate the risk. But how far should they go - should they drive instead? Or ride on the pavement, which lowers the risk of _serious_ injuries to someone,at the increased(?) risk of _minor_ injuries - as well as being illegal and massively antisocial? They should ride with awareness of their surroundings, consideration for other road users, and stick to the rules of the road. No, really? Although I suspect people who ride without awareness of their surroundings will sooner or later remove themselves from circulation anyway. It's a sorry state of affairs when, on my walk from home to the station (which is all on suburban roads, with one road crossing) I have to spend more time looking out for cyclists than for all motorised vehicles put together. OTOH, on my walk to the station I have to look out for motorists. There are rather more of them, and it only takes the odd one who sails through the puffin crossing for me to end up very dead. At least in the event a cyclist were to go through a red light I would do them more harm than they would do me. A motorbike went through the lights the other day - straight into the back of car stood on the road ahead. When I'm on a bus or train or tram it is all someone else's problem, and I'll probably be on the winning side in any collision (unless someone does an Ufton or Great Heck or Lockington). One thing motorists don't generally have to worry about is deliberate attack, which is a minor but non-zero risk on a push bike, and much less common but I guess still non-zero on foot. Fortunately the people who think throwing things at bikes is a fun thing to do are (by definition) idiots, and usually overlook the need to aim in front of a moving target. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
NB4L production buses
On 31/07/2013 14:43, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:08 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote: I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made an exception to VED, the answer being no. Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about paying VED enhancing priority. Oh well, I misread it in that case. Care to answer it, though? I don't think I mentioned "VED enhancing priority" whatever that means in english. I think I simply said bikes should pay road tax if the rider wishes to ride on numbered roads. Is that too complex for you? Not at all. Quite the opposite, I think. Either you fail to understand my question or you are trying hard to avoid answering it. I shall explain. You think cyclists should not be able to use certain roads since they do not pay to use the roads. Right? Therefore paying conveys enhanced priority. Right? (If it helps clear up what I suspect is the cause of confusion, then I don't mean "priority" in a Give Way sense, but in the more general sense. Importance. Relevance. Whatever word you may prefer.) Is the question clearer to you now? Do people in cars who have not paid VED (ie older cars, low emission cars, disabled drivers) sit on the same perceived "normal" level of priority as other drivers, or the perceived lower level as cyclists, in your view? And what about disabled cyclists? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
NB4L production buses
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:06:58 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:
And what about disabled cyclists? Duhg's dead. |
NB4L production buses
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:43:41 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:08 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote: I shall explain. You think cyclists should not be able to use certain roads since they do not pay to use the roads. Right? Yup. Therefore paying conveys enhanced priority. Right? Nope. It simply conveys them the right to use said roads. They'd have no more priority than they have now. Do people in cars who have not paid VED (ie older cars, low emission cars, disabled drivers) sit on the same perceived "normal" level of priority as other drivers, or the perceived lower level as cyclists, in your view? When people in old or low emission cars start endlessly whinging about other drivers being nasty to them and how the roads should be redone in special way just for them, then I'll have a think about that. In the meantime I don't give a ****. -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:21:55 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:06:58 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote: And what about disabled cyclists? Duhg's dead. Is he really dead or are you being sarcastic? If the former, when did he die? NJR |
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:19:35 +0000, neil wrote:
And what about disabled cyclists? Duhg's dead. Is he really dead or are you being sarcastic? I have no idea. But, with his age and medical status, it's definitely more than evens. |
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:18:23 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
Therefore paying conveys enhanced priority. Right? Nope. It simply conveys them the right to use said roads. They'd have no more priority than they have now. I think that's a "Yes", given the caveat as to the use of the word "priority" which you snipped. (If it helps clear up what I suspect is the cause of confusion, then I don't mean "priority" in a Give Way sense, but in the more general sense. Importance. Relevance. Whatever word you may prefer.) In the Give Way sense of "priority", then bicycles have exactly the same as any other type of vehicle - which is how it should be. Do people in cars who have not paid VED (ie older cars, low emission cars, disabled drivers) sit on the same perceived "normal" level of priority as other drivers, or the perceived lower level as cyclists, in your view? When people in old or low emission cars start endlessly whinging about other drivers being nasty to them and how the roads should be redone in special way just for them, then I'll have a think about that. In the meantime I don't give a ****. Thank you for confirming that the VED thing is nothing more than a red herring, and you are just inherently biased against the bicycle. |
NB4L production buses
|
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:09:59 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:18:23 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote: When people in old or low emission cars start endlessly whinging about other drivers being nasty to them and how the roads should be redone in special way just for them, then I'll have a think about that. In the meantime I don't give a ****. Thank you for confirming that the VED thing is nothing more than a red herring, and you are just inherently biased against the bicycle. Since when? Bikes should pay some sort of tax to use the roads. End of. Do I think old or low emission cars should be exempt? No. Now if those 2 statements are too complex for you then too bad. Discussion over. -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:44:15 +0100
David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:12:11AM +0000, d wrote: You must have cloth ears then. Every other week there's some shrieking crustie on the TV or local radio saying "something must be done!" about cycling deaths in London. I know - how about cyclists learn to use their ****ing eyes and common sense and don't go up the inside of a truck or bus turning left! You never know, it might just work. Or up the right of a vehicle signalling to turn right. That's what happened the only time I ran a cyclist over. Thankfully, he did it right in front of a nice gentleman from the Met who was waiting to cross the road on foot. If he hadn't then it would, of course, have been found to be my fault. I've got a good one - some dumb **** on a bike riding ON hanger lane gyratory. For those who don't know its 4 - 7 lane wide roundabout in west london. It also has subways running all the way underneath it that include clearer marked and segregated cycle paths. The guy either was a complete fool or was just being bloody minded for the sake of it, take your pick. NJR |
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:54:01 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
When people in old or low emission cars start endlessly whinging about other drivers being nasty to them and how the roads should be redone in special way just for them, then I'll have a think about that. In the meantime I don't give a ****. Thank you for confirming that the VED thing is nothing more than a red herring, and you are just inherently biased against the bicycle. Since when? OK, my apologies. So let's go back a step. Bikes should pay some sort of tax to use the roads. End of. Yes, I think we understand your view on the subject Do I think old or low emission cars should be exempt? No. Don't forget disabled drivers. Should they be exempt, iyho? Such is your prerogative. But the fact remains that - like cyclists - they do not currently pay VED. Since that IS the case (and unlikely to change soon, especially since the old vehicle exemption is currently being extended), do your clearly and frequently expressed beliefs about restricting road use for zero-VED- paying cyclists apply to zero-VED-paying drivers, too? It's a simple question, and surely a yes or no answer will cover it. Now if those 2 statements are too complex for you then too bad. I understand them perfectly well, thank you. I am asking you follow-on questions based on them. You appear to be trying very hard not to answer those questions. Discussion over. You can choose to ignore the questions if you feel they're too difficult for you to answer without showing a true agenda which you are embarrassed about admitting, but other people may decide that revealing in itself. |
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:16:23 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote: On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:54:01 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote: Do I think old or low emission cars should be exempt? No. Don't forget disabled drivers. Should they be exempt, iyho? Try reading what I wrote a few posts back. It might help. -- Spud |
NB4L production buses
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:19:20 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
a bit more vacuous bluster to try to derail inspection I notice you snipped the awkward question again. ... do your clearly and frequently expressed beliefs about restricting road use for zero-VED-paying cyclists apply to zero-VED-paying drivers, too? It's a simple question, and surely a yes or no answer will cover it. I think it's fairly clear now that you're trying to avoid answering the question, which can really only lead to one conclusion. That VED is a red herring, and it's the bicycle itself which your objections pertain to. The rest is just bluster to try to hide your true motives. Yes or No? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk