Clive wrote:
In message , chris harrison
writes

Huge finally succumbing to the realisation that sense and cycle-hating
are mutually exclusive.

Rubbish, I've yet to come across a cyclist who cares about pedestrians
or the rules of the road. I've never seen a more selfish lot.

Yawn.

s/cyclist/car-driver/**

Repeat ad nauseum depending on your prejudices.

"Chris" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Well, it would be, cyclists not being acustomed to actually paying for
anything, given that they use the roads and the trains for nothing.


I'm a 40% tax payer, a paid-up motorist, and a cyclist. I pay for the
roads just as much anyone.

You really are as thick as **** aren't you?

******.

Same here - I have 2 cars insured, taxed and MOT'd in regular use on the
roads, but I cycle to work occasionally. In what way do I use the road for
nothing?
Exactly how much wear to the road does a bike cause compared to a car? How
about the zero pollution from each bike user? Surely it is far better for
the environment if *more* people cycled?
There would be far less congestion, pollution and road wear if lots more
people cycled instead of drove everywhere.

Maybe "Huge" is too bloody lazy to get his fat arse out of the car and try
cycling anywhere.

Idiot.

Alan ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Same here - I have 2 cars insured, taxed and MOT'd in regular use on
the roads, but I cycle to work occasionally. In what way do I use the
road for nothing?

Road use is priced by the vehicle, not by the individual.

You can't use the fact that one of your cars has a valid tax disc to
justify the use of a second without buying a tax disc for it.

Equally, you don't pay anything to use your bicycle on the road.

Before I get flamed - I'm making no comment about whether I think bicycles
*should* pay for a tax disc or not...

"Huge" wrote in message
...

You're a cyclist, and therefore a freeloader, a parasite,
a hypocrite.

Unlike cyclists in general, and you in particular, I have the
power of rational thought.

Didn't you claim to use a bike at some point? Either you or Steve Firth -
possibly both. If you did, would you care to explain why you aren't a
cyclist and therefor subject to what you write above?

clive

In message , Alan
writes

I'm a 40% tax payer, a paid-up motorist, and a cyclist. I pay for the
roads just as much anyone.

Same here - I have 2 cars insured, taxed and MOT'd in regular use on the
roads, but I cycle to work occasionally.

Same here, except that I don't have a bike. Am I due a rebate then?

--
Steve Walker

Huge wrote:
Except that I have the degree certificates to demonstrate the
opposite to that which you imply.

Did you pay for your degree education(s?) or are you one of those
freeloaders you so despise?

Clive George wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...

You're a cyclist, and therefore a freeloader, a parasite,
a hypocrite.


Unlike cyclists in general, and you in particular, I have the
power of rational thought.


Didn't you claim to use a bike at some point? Either you or Steve Firth -
possibly both. If you did, would you care to explain why you aren't a
cyclist and therefor subject to what you write above?

I'm fairly sure that he also used to decry those who flaunted higher
degrees in contexts where they were irrelevant ("Except that I have the
degree certificates ....").

Still, it's a little much for everyone to remain consistent in our views
over so many years.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Alan" writes:

"Chris" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Well, it would be, cyclists not being acustomed to actually paying for
anything, given that they use the roads and the trains for nothing.


I'm a 40% tax payer, a paid-up motorist, and a cyclist. I pay for the
roads just as much anyone.

You really are as thick as **** aren't you?

******.

Same here - I have 2 cars insured, taxed and MOT'd in regular use on the
roads,

Irrelevant.

but I cycle to work occasionally. In what way do I use the road for
nothing?

As a cyclist, you pay nothing to use the roads. That makes you a
feeloader.

Ahhhhh, so I'm a feeloader. I'm not aware of any system I'm dodging by using
a bike. If there was such a system, and was sensibly priced, I'd be happy to
use it. Tax on motorbikes is far less than cars, so as bicycle tax would be
less still, it should be reasonable.
However, as there is currently no system, you cannot accuse cyclists of
anything.


Exactly how much wear to the road does a bike cause compared to a car?

Irrelevant. Road taxes are not hypothecated.

See point above.


How
about the zero pollution from each bike user?

The last time I looked, bikes were made from steel or aluminium, not
moonbeams.

But far less material in a bike than a car and therefore far less pollution
in their manufacture. And once manufactured they do not pollute further in
their use, unlike cars.

Surely it is far better for
the environment if *more* people cycled?

Not the point at issue.

There would be far less congestion, pollution and road wear if lots more
people cycled instead of drove everywhere.

Irrelevant.

Didn't think you'd have an answer for that.


Maybe "Huge" is too bloody lazy to get his fat arse out of the car and try
cycling anywhere.

'Ad hominem'

Or that.


Still, when you're robbing Peter to subsidise Paul, you can't really
expect
Paul to have any complaints, can you?


I'm not robbing from anyone, I am using the system provided by the
government perfectly legally. So you'd rather all cyclists had cars instead
and drove everywhere, however unnecessary just so that they can be in a
taxed vehicle every time they make any journey, instead of using another
transport solution which reduces pollution and congestion, and helps keep
the cyclist fit?

OK, so are you proposing pavement tax to anyone who walks anywhere because
they're using the pavement for free? Pavements are built as part of roads.

Go get a life.


Idiot.

You cyclists are fond of self-descriptive sigs, aren't you?


I don't have any signature. What's your point?

In article ,
Huge wrote:
As it happens, nor am I at this point. I just want cyclists to admit
that they get to use the roads for nothing.

They pay VAT on the purchase of their bike, which goes to pay for
the upkeep of the roads in the same way that the money you pay for
the tax disc does ('road tax' being tied in some way to spending
on new roads stopped being true in the 1920s, IIRC).

It's possible that this is in reasonable proportion to the damage
they cause to the road - and thus the amount of money that needs
to be spent on maintaince - but that would be difficult to show,
I suspect.

Then we come to the next point; cyclists want to be treated like
"proper road users" (in actual fact, they mean cars, but if you mention
that, they deny it.) That's fine by me. I want them to be treated like
"proper road users", too; that is, registered, licensed, tested,

tested? The rigour of testing seems to be proportional to the amount of
damage improper use will cause: that's why a 21tonne LGV licence
(and LGV MOT, if you were refering to vehicle rather than driver
testing) is more difficult to get than a moped licence.

Therefore, I suspect that the test for a push bike would be about
as hard to pass as writting the date on the application - and thus
rather pointless.

carry
a registration plate, be prosecuted for their continuous infractions of
the road laws

I'd agree with that, but that's an manpower/enforcement issue (like
all road issues that can't be detected with a camera).

Cheers,
Mike

In message , Alan
writes
Surely it is far better for the environment if *more* people cycled?
There would be far less congestion, pollution and road wear if lots
more people cycled instead of drove everywhere.

Maybe "Huge" is too bloody lazy to get his fat arse out of the car and
try cycling anywhere.
Maybe if the government got on and built the roads and by-passes for
which they have the money, there would be less congestion anyway. ( Yes
they have the money, or are they spending our money making war with Iraq
without payment.
--
Clive