On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:29:34 +0000, neil wrote:

I've also got a large and very thirsty petrol 4x4, as well as a nice
sensible economical hatchback and three or four classic cars. And a
couple of old mopeds. And several bicycles.

Wow, someone must've left you a nice trust fund.

Yes, because that's the only possible solution you can come up for your
jealousy that not everybody's a wage slave in a grim suburb, isn't it?

The camper's worth the same as we paid for it, 40k miles and 2yrs ago.
The 205 cost £100 four years ago - and regularly returns mid-40s mpg.
The 4x4 cost £800 with a year's MOT.
One moped was free, the other cost £100. They're each worth about £300
now.
One 2cv cost £100, one cost less than a grand, and she's owned the third
for 30 years next year. That one'd easily fetch £5k+ tomorrow, not that
it's for sale.
My bike cost me £50 20yrs ago. Her bike was bought off a national park's
cycle-hire scheme. Her dad's classic racing bike'll be on eBay soon. Her
mother's gorgeous old Swedish bike's going to get restored soon.

I think you've just blown any eco credentials you had out the water
however.

What "eco credentials" are those, then? I've certainly never laid claim
to any.

Have you owned up to what you drive lately? Or is it still a state
secret?

Its far more fun not telling.

Jesus. It's that embarrassing, eh?

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:33:56 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:04:25 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

those driving old or low emission cars should be restricted in the way
you want to restrict cyclists.

I want to "restrict" cyclists?

Well, that's certainly the impression I've got from what you've been
writing on the subject in this thread.

No, its not an impression "Adrian" , its you deliberately flipping the logic
on its head to score points. Do you realise how transparent you are even though
no doubt you think you're being oh so clever about it? ) No probably not.

Its no more restricting cyclists than expecting people to pay to use public
transport is "restricting" their movements.

Do try harder sonny - even as a troll you're ****ing useless. But funny )

--
Spud

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:17:02 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

those driving old or low emission cars should be restricted in the way
you want to restrict cyclists.

I want to "restrict" cyclists?

Well, that's certainly the impression I've got from what you've been
writing on the subject in this thread.

No, its not an impression "Adrian" , its you deliberately flipping the
logic on its head to score points.

Its no more restricting cyclists than expecting people to pay to use
public transport is "restricting" their movements.

So explain to me how not allowing cyclists to use numbered roads (without
additional requirements over the current situation) is not "restricting"
them?

How else should I interpret these quotes?

You think cyclists should not be able to use certain roads since they
do not pay to use the roads. Right?

Yup.

or

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.

or

bikes should pay road tax if the rider wishes to ride on numbered
roads

or

Bikes should pay some sort of tax to use the roads. End of.

Perhaps you could explain what you did mean, if not that cyclists should
be restricted?

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:41:29 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:29:34 +0000, neil wrote:

I've also got a large and very thirsty petrol 4x4, as well as a nice
sensible economical hatchback and three or four classic cars. And a
couple of old mopeds. And several bicycles.

Wow, someone must've left you a nice trust fund.

Yes, because that's the only possible solution you can come up for your
jealousy that not everybody's a wage slave in a grim suburb, isn't it?

Its not that grim and its in london. Where's you house? Oh , thats right,
according to your blog a while back you didn't even have one and were
squatting in the camper van. Nice. Showing your missus the high life eh?

The camper's worth the same as we paid for it, 40k miles and 2yrs ago.

Bugger all then to a normal person.

The 205 cost £100 four years ago - and regularly returns mid-40s mpg.
The 4x4 cost £800 with a year's MOT.
One moped was free, the other cost £100. They're each worth about £300
now.
One 2cv cost £100, one cost less than a grand, and she's owned the third
for 30 years next year. That one'd easily fetch £5k+ tomorrow, not that
it's for sale.

So in other words a load of pikey scrap sitting in a yard somewhere. Ok, I take
back my trust fund comment - I'd expected someone who posts to a driving group
to own at least 1 decent vehicle.

My bike cost me £50 20yrs ago. Her bike was bought off a national park's

Bought or nicked?

cycle-hire scheme. Her dad's classic racing bike'll be on eBay soon. Her
mother's gorgeous old Swedish bike's going to get restored soon.

Fascinating. *yawn*

I think you've just blown any eco credentials you had out the water
however.

What "eco credentials" are those, then? I've certainly never laid claim
to any.

Well you seem to champion cyclists and get all irate when someone dares to
suggest they should be taxed. Why would anyone other than a dyed in the wool
Cyclopath give a ****?

Its far more fun not telling.

Jesus. It's that embarrassing, eh?

Lets just say even at 5 years old its still worth more than all the scrap you
own combined.

NJR

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:20:40 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
[more deliberate misunderstandings]

Listen, I'd love to keep feeding you but my troll bucket is empty. You'll just
have to wait for someone else to cross your bridge. Au reviour!

--
Spud

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:27:50 +0000, neil wrote:

I've also got a large and very thirsty petrol 4x4, as well as a nice
sensible economical hatchback and three or four classic cars. And a
couple of old mopeds. And several bicycles.

Wow, someone must've left you a nice trust fund.

Yes, because that's the only possible solution you can come up for your
jealousy that not everybody's a wage slave in a grim suburb, isn't it?

Its not that grim and its in london. Where's you house? Oh , thats
right, according to your blog a while back you didn't even have one and
were squatting in the camper van. Nice.

Well, the house in a really very pleasant corner of the home counties
which we were renting out whilst we were away sold in three weeks for
quite a lot of money - just as well, really, since we were in the throes
of buying a rather large and lovely house in a beautiful rural part of
the country, thank you for asking. With a nice chunk left over after
paying off the mortgage.

So, at just over 40, here I am - mortgage free - in my dream house. Poor
us. How's the wage-slavery going?

Showing your missus the high life eh?

She seems very happy with life, and certainly was enjoying life on the
road.

The camper's worth the same as we paid for it, 40k miles and 2yrs ago.

Bugger all then to a normal person.

shrug Who cares?

The 205 cost £100 four years ago - and regularly returns mid-40s mpg.
The 4x4 cost £800 with a year's MOT.
One moped was free, the other cost £100. They're each worth about £300
now.
One 2cv cost £100, one cost less than a grand, and she's owned the third
for 30 years next year. That one'd easily fetch £5k+ tomorrow, not that
it's for sale.

So in other words a load of pikey scrap sitting in a yard somewhere. Ok,
I take back my trust fund comment - I'd expected someone who posts to a
driving group to own at least 1 decent vehicle.

With the exception of the 4x4 - proof-of-necessity short-term purchase -
they're all cars that we love dearly, and all bought for being bloody
excellent at the job. So, yes, they're definitely "decent vehicles". The
fact that you think the value's more important than the driving dynamics
shows you as the sort of vacuous urban-centric **** that you are.

I think you've just blown any eco credentials you had out the water
however.

What "eco credentials" are those, then? I've certainly never laid claim
to any.

Well you seem to champion cyclists and get all irate when someone dares
to suggest they should be taxed. Why would anyone other than a dyed in
the wool Cyclopath give a ****?

a. Because I genuinely don't think bicycles are half as much of a traffic
problem as the kind of ****wit who gets red mist at the thought of them
b. Because I genuinely don't like snide hidden agendas promoted by
duplicitous little ****s.
c. Because I genuinely don't think bikes need taxing and I don't think
cyclists need licensing.

Its far more fun not telling.

Jesus. It's that embarrassing, eh?

Lets just say even at 5 years old its still worth more than all the
scrap you own combined.

Gosh, really?
Your 5yo whatevercommutermobile is worth rough count up £15-20k?

I don't believe you. And - one thing's definitely for certain - the value
of your whatevercommutermobile's only going one way, and it ain't the
same way as the value of our fleet is.

One other thing's for certain... I'm sure that the value of your car
bothers you far more than the value of mine bothers me.

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:11:05 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:
... 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.

No. Those who cause the greatest risk to others have the greatest
responsibility to reduce that risk.

Cyclists can make themselves safer, mainly by being more aware of what
drivers are doing around them. The danger still comes overwhelmingly from
the motor vehicles, with a small contribution from poor road surfaces.

In a majority of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles, police
record the driver as mainly at fault. In collisions between pedestrians
and motor vehicles, the pedestrians are more likely than the drivers to be
blamed. So cyclists are more careful of their own safety than pedestrians
are.

Colin McKenzie

--
Cycling in the UK is about as safe as walking, and helmets don't make it
safer. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 15:57:36 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
Its not that grim and its in london. Where's you house? Oh , thats
right, according to your blog a while back you didn't even have one and
were squatting in the camper van. Nice.

Well, the house in a really very pleasant corner of the home counties
which we were renting out whilst we were away sold in three weeks for
quite a lot of money - just as well, really, since we were in the throes
of buying a rather large and lovely house in a beautiful rural part of
the country, thank you for asking. With a nice chunk left over after
paying off the mortgage.

Ah , so I was right about the trust fund. Either that or a lottery win or
an inheritence. There's zero chance a dumb**** like you could earn enough
by 40 to pay off the mortgage on a posh house.

So, at just over 40, here I am - mortgage free - in my dream house. Poor
us. How's the wage-slavery going?

Well given I'm self employed its hardly slavery plus my contract will be
ending soon and I won't be bothering to look for another until next year. The
benefits of IT contracting rates. Though the only benefits you'd know about
would be income support.

With the exception of the 4x4 - proof-of-necessity short-term purchase -
they're all cars that we love dearly, and all bought for being bloody
excellent at the job. So, yes, they're definitely "decent vehicles". The
fact that you think the value's more important than the driving dynamics
shows you as the sort of vacuous urban-centric **** that you are.

A cars value is set by what all the people who want to buy 2nd hand cars
everywhere around the country think its worth. That rather trumps your opinion.
If its only worth a few hundred quid its because everyone else thinks its scrap.

Well you seem to champion cyclists and get all irate when someone dares
to suggest they should be taxed. Why would anyone other than a dyed in
the wool Cyclopath give a ****?

a. Because I genuinely don't think bicycles are half as much of a traffic
problem as the kind of ****wit who gets red mist at the thought of them
b. Because I genuinely don't like snide hidden agendas promoted by
duplicitous little ****s.
c. Because I genuinely don't think bikes need taxing and I don't think
cyclists need licensing.

d. Because you're a trolling little dick.

I don't believe you. And - one thing's definitely for certain - the value
of your whatevercommutermobile's only going one way, and it ain't the
same way as the value of our fleet is.

LOL!!! Yeah , whatever you say )

One other thing's for certain... I'm sure that the value of your car
bothers you far more than the value of mine bothers me.

If its value bothered me I'd buy a new one. But I happen to like it and
intend to keep it until it falls to bits.

NJR