Green MEP calls for shake-up in transport infrastructure in Southampton as cycling debate intensifies

Keith Taylor

Cyclist David Irving, who was killed in a collision in Southampton

First published in News

The death of cyclist David Irving, killed when he was knocked off his bike in Southampton, has prompted a fierce row between drivers and bike riders.

And the debate intensified this week after a cyclist was knocked down in a hit-and-run at a controversial new junction layout near the Itchen Bridge.

Here, Keith Taylor, Green MEP for South East England, sets out his thoughts on transport in the city arguing that we need a revolution in the way we travel.

"Every year, hundreds of people in Southampton are injured on the roads, and almost every year people die as a result of collisions.

Every single one of these deaths is a tragedy, and I’ve made it my mission as your MEP to bring safer streets to towns and cities across south-east England.

In recent weeks, we’ve seen the end of a court case following the death of David Irving, who was knocked off his bike on Mountbatten Way.

The driver, who clipped David with his wing mirror, was found not guilty of causing death by careless driving.

As David’s death illustrates, cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users.

In Southampton, just three per cent of journeys are made by bicycle, yet a staggering 26.1 per cent of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured involved a cyclist.

And cyclists aren’t the only ones facing dangers on the road. Hundreds of pedestrians, motorcyclists and drivers are injured in accidents in my constituency every year.

It’s also abundantly clear that collisions aren’t the only cause of death associated with road transport.

Road transport has also given rise to another killer, albeit an invisible one, which causes harm to many more people than traffic accidents.

Air pollution ends the lives of 30,000 people in the UK each and every year. It’s caused by tiny particles in the air, which make their way into our lungs, causing us breathing problems and heart conditions.

The levels of air pollution in the UK, including Southampton, are so bad that our own Government is facing legal action because it’s failing to meet European Union guidelines on clean air.

Unfortunately it seems that it’s not just our roads that are gridlocked; our politicians in Westminster are still stuck in old ways of thinking, dedicated to building more roads, proposing higher speed limits and trying to water down air pollution legislation.

We have a lot of work to do to make travel safer. With the right kind of changes, we could dramatically improve the safety of our streets.

My vision for cities like Southampton would see safety as the number one priority. That means 20mph zones across our city centres, improved safety features in all cars (something I’ve worked on in the European Parliament) and proper space given to pedestrians and cyclists.

It’s clear that we also need to cut congestion, which is not only frustrating for drivers but estimated to cost the economy £7 billion a year. But we won’t cut congestion unless we offer drivers an alternative that’s both affordable and convenient.

At times like these, when people’s wages are stagnating, train ticket prices should be going down, not up. That’s why Greens are campaigning to bring our railways into public ownership.

We need a publicly owned railway network that’s receiving the investment needed to encourage people to take the train. If railways in the south-east had the investment they needed, we could, for example, cut the travel time from Southampton to Portsmouth by a third.

We also need to see the prices of bus fares drop dramatically. It strikes me as hugely unfair that London’s residents, who tend to earn more than people in the rest of the UK, enjoy cheaper bus tickets than anyone else.

The good news, when it comes to transport, is that progress is already being made, albeit at a slower rate than I’d like.

The council here in Southampton has committed to delivering a cut in car use and a real terms cut in carbon emissions from transport.

Ultimately, this country needs to see a revolution in the way we travel. We need to invest in transport infrastructure that promotes safety and cuts pollution. Rather than investing in big road projects, which are ineffective in cutting congestion, we need to provide people with public transport options that are reliable, affordable and convenient."

Comments (153)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:23pm Sat 1 Mar 14

St.Ray says...

I live in France where the rule (Law???) is that all motorist are required & expected to give at least 1 metre of space when overtaking a cyclist. If ,as a driver, you cannot allow this space the motorists always, in my experience, wait until the space is available. Heavy Goods vehicles are required to allow 2 metres when overtaking. This rule is a fair & sensible one that ensures a safe practice for all concerned & perhaps should be considered in the UK. But I would say that cyclists, in France, do not appear to be law unto their selves as is the case with so many in the UK
I live in France where the rule (Law???) is that all motorist are required & expected to give at least 1 metre of space when overtaking a cyclist. If ,as a driver, you cannot allow this space the motorists always, in my experience, wait until the space is available. Heavy Goods vehicles are required to allow 2 metres when overtaking. This rule is a fair & sensible one that ensures a safe practice for all concerned & perhaps should be considered in the UK. But I would say that cyclists, in France, do not appear to be law unto their selves as is the case with so many in the UK St.Ray
  • Score: 40

4:23pm Sat 1 Mar 14

mickey01 says...

god elp us if the green party starts getting involved we will have pedal cars next
god elp us if the green party starts getting involved we will have pedal cars next mickey01
  • Score: -8

4:24pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Huffter says...

According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.
According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured. Huffter
  • Score: 2

4:24pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Quizbook says...

Right, He's got my vote.
Right, He's got my vote. Quizbook
  • Score: 1

4:26pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world
Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world Mary80
  • Score: 17

4:35pm Sat 1 Mar 14

tootle says...

Relax - it's the European elections in May(and just check out the expenses MEPs get!!!!!!!!!!). Never heard of the chap before today and didn't even know we had a green MEP. Idly taps foot wondering how many other politicians will be addressing this issue shortly..

Mind he does have a point - even if I had over an hour to spare when visiting the other side of Southampton it is still cheaper to use the car than take the bus!. I am also happy to not pollute our amazing City centre - mainly because there are nicer places to shop and I really do not like shopping.
Relax - it's the European elections in May(and just check out the expenses MEPs get!!!!!!!!!!). Never heard of the chap before today and didn't even know we had a green MEP. Idly taps foot wondering how many other politicians will be addressing this issue shortly.. Mind he does have a point - even if I had over an hour to spare when visiting the other side of Southampton it is still cheaper to use the car than take the bus!. I am also happy to not pollute our amazing City centre - mainly because there are nicer places to shop and I really do not like shopping. tootle
  • Score: 14

4:37pm Sat 1 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

Round and round we go, all I will say is the fact that someone will knock a cyclist off and keep going is disgusting and just shows how they are viewed in this country and then when they are caught they just say "Oh, I thought it was a bollard or something, I didn't realise"
I hope this **** gets caught so we can see who they are
Round and round we go, all I will say is the fact that someone will knock a cyclist off and keep going is disgusting and just shows how they are viewed in this country and then when they are caught they just say "Oh, I thought it was a bollard or something, I didn't realise" I hope this **** gets caught so we can see who they are bigfella777
  • Score: 6

4:58pm Sat 1 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

Mary80 wrote:
Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world
You are talking out of your backside
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world[/p][/quote]You are talking out of your backside KSO16R
  • Score: -26

5:14pm Sat 1 Mar 14

SOULJACKER says...

The council (& I have said it many a time) don't help their cause because of their shear arrogance & how they are apparently never wrong!
You could have a million people killed on the streets in Southampton & not one of them will be their fault & it will always be someone elses wrong doing!
They make stupid decisions like 'Cobden' & 'Itchen' Bridge cycle lanes which screw the whole city over just to make their point.
Guess what Southampton city council....IT AIN'T ALL ABOUT YOU, WE PAY YOUR WAGES SO WATCH OUT YOU ARROGANT NO GOOD IDIOTS!
The council (& I have said it many a time) don't help their cause because of their shear arrogance & how they are apparently never wrong! You could have a million people killed on the streets in Southampton & not one of them will be their fault & it will always be someone elses wrong doing! They make stupid decisions like 'Cobden' & 'Itchen' Bridge cycle lanes which screw the whole city over just to make their point. Guess what Southampton city council....IT AIN'T ALL ABOUT YOU, WE PAY YOUR WAGES SO WATCH OUT YOU ARROGANT NO GOOD IDIOTS! SOULJACKER
  • Score: 11

5:20pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Suntanned Snowman says...

Cycling is obviously very dangerous and should be banned
Cycling is obviously very dangerous and should be banned Suntanned Snowman
  • Score: -2

5:26pm Sat 1 Mar 14

theresasurprise says...

KSO16R wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world
You are talking out of your backside
Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move.
I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world[/p][/quote]You are talking out of your backside[/p][/quote]Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move. I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims.. theresasurprise
  • Score: 13

5:51pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Triumph Rider says...

OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs.

your replies are awaited .....
OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs. your replies are awaited ..... Triumph Rider
  • Score: 41

6:08pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

theresasurprise wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world
You are talking out of your backside
Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move.
I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..
Council tax pays for the road, not VED, also, it IS law to use lights at night, as forreflective clothing and helmets, they do naff all when drivers dont look or see you but don't care and hit you at any speed higher than 15mph, even at lower speeds, it's not your head that's going to take most of the impact if you're hit by a car, it's going to be arms, knees, hips and ankles, unless you get hit by a large vehicle from the side, your head is least likely to receive injuries in a collision as a cyclist, also, cyclists who don't have lights at night, often DO get fined OR they get me telling them to get off and walk until they have some lights.
[quote][p][bold]theresasurprise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world[/p][/quote]You are talking out of your backside[/p][/quote]Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move. I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..[/p][/quote]Council tax pays for the road, not VED, also, it IS law to use lights at night, as forreflective clothing and helmets, they do naff all when drivers dont look or see you but don't care and hit you at any speed higher than 15mph, even at lower speeds, it's not your head that's going to take most of the impact if you're hit by a car, it's going to be arms, knees, hips and ankles, unless you get hit by a large vehicle from the side, your head is least likely to receive injuries in a collision as a cyclist, also, cyclists who don't have lights at night, often DO get fined OR they get me telling them to get off and walk until they have some lights. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -6

6:09pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Suntanned Snowman wrote:
Cycling is obviously very dangerous and should be banned
Statistically more dangerous per mile traveled to walk, shall we also ban walking?
[quote][p][bold]Suntanned Snowman[/bold] wrote: Cycling is obviously very dangerous and should be banned[/p][/quote]Statistically more dangerous per mile traveled to walk, shall we also ban walking? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -5

6:16pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Triumph Rider wrote:
OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs.

your replies are awaited .....
We don't HAVE to use cycle paths and they are often more dangerous than using the roads, most cyclists do NOT jump red lights and most have lights fitted to the bike, in fact, I myself, have 7 lights fitted to my bike and 2 on my helmet, giving me a total of 9 lights and I make sure they're all charged and switched on before I ride, I turn all but 1 on during the day too, the one I leave off, is my main light that I only use at night and when the weather is abysmal, then I use it on the full 1800Lumen setting but mounted so you can see it coming towards you but it doesn't dazzle motorists.
[quote][p][bold]Triumph Rider[/bold] wrote: OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs. your replies are awaited .....[/p][/quote]We don't HAVE to use cycle paths and they are often more dangerous than using the roads, most cyclists do NOT jump red lights and most have lights fitted to the bike, in fact, I myself, have 7 lights fitted to my bike and 2 on my helmet, giving me a total of 9 lights and I make sure they're all charged and switched on before I ride, I turn all but 1 on during the day too, the one I leave off, is my main light that I only use at night and when the weather is abysmal, then I use it on the full 1800Lumen setting but mounted so you can see it coming towards you but it doesn't dazzle motorists. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -18

6:21pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Burt HInkler wrote:
The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.
No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.
[quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.[/p][/quote]No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -15

6:24pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

KSO16R wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world
You are talking out of your backside
I see it with my OWN EYES just the other night at the big Co-Op in Woolston a guy just slowly walked across the road at the very busy roundabout to exit, he didn't even LOOK nor did he even seem to notice when the driver honked their horn. Just in WHAT WAY am i talking out my arse huh? I live IN Southampton you moron i drive to and from town quite a lot and see plenty of pedestrians NOT LOOKING and walking right across the road. Maybe its YOU talking out your arse as i've SEEN more pedestrians risking their lives than i care to tell you.
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world[/p][/quote]You are talking out of your backside[/p][/quote]I see it with my OWN EYES just the other night at the big Co-Op in Woolston a guy just slowly walked across the road at the very busy roundabout to exit, he didn't even LOOK nor did he even seem to notice when the driver honked their horn. Just in WHAT WAY am i talking out my arse huh? I live IN Southampton you moron i drive to and from town quite a lot and see plenty of pedestrians NOT LOOKING and walking right across the road. Maybe its YOU talking out your arse as i've SEEN more pedestrians risking their lives than i care to tell you. Mary80
  • Score: 15

6:36pm Sat 1 Mar 14

NotoNwo says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.
No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.
You see cyclists want the cake eat it and shg the baker.

They should upload their misdeeds while they are cycling from their head cams.

No legally obliged to wear hi vis maybe true and that you should not be legally obliged goes to show how little you want to take safety measures and expect motor vehicles to make all comprises.

Some cyclists are a menace to pedestrians and motorists.

The other day a cyclist with a head cam mounted the pavement to avoid stopping at the red light and if they don't do this then they cycle through pedestrians crossing on the crossing with the green man.

I've seen so much stupid antics by cyclists that I've lost all if sympathy.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.[/p][/quote]No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.[/p][/quote]You see cyclists want the cake eat it and shg the baker. They should upload their misdeeds while they are cycling from their head cams. No legally obliged to wear hi vis maybe true and that you should not be legally obliged goes to show how little you want to take safety measures and expect motor vehicles to make all comprises. Some cyclists are a menace to pedestrians and motorists. The other day a cyclist with a head cam mounted the pavement to avoid stopping at the red light and if they don't do this then they cycle through pedestrians crossing on the crossing with the green man. I've seen so much stupid antics by cyclists that I've lost all if sympathy. NotoNwo
  • Score: 23

6:51pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

NotoNwo wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.
No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.
You see cyclists want the cake eat it and shg the baker.

They should upload their misdeeds while they are cycling from their head cams.

No legally obliged to wear hi vis maybe true and that you should not be legally obliged goes to show how little you want to take safety measures and expect motor vehicles to make all comprises.

Some cyclists are a menace to pedestrians and motorists.

The other day a cyclist with a head cam mounted the pavement to avoid stopping at the red light and if they don't do this then they cycle through pedestrians crossing on the crossing with the green man.

I've seen so much stupid antics by cyclists that I've lost all if sympathy.
I always upload IF I make a mistake, like my last mistake that I made while filtering through traffic going down lances hill, going a little too fast, trying to keep an eye on everything that was going on, lmost went into the back right corner of a truck but managed to stop before I did, again, what good is hi-vis when people don't look or see you but don't care in the first place? Maybe we should ban cars from being painted dark colours, paint them in fluro/dayglo colours, maybe pedestrians should also be made to wear hi vis since they're the ones who are killed and injured the most on our roads and where was it that you saw this helmet cam cyclist mount the pavement to avoid the red light? I mean, if it was Northam bridge, it might have been me as both paths over the bridge there are shared use, making it legal to ride on them, it's also legal to use them to avoid red lights, so as long as they mounted a shared or segregated cycle path, they were within the law to do so to avoid the red light.
[quote][p][bold]NotoNwo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.[/p][/quote]No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.[/p][/quote]You see cyclists want the cake eat it and shg the baker. They should upload their misdeeds while they are cycling from their head cams. No legally obliged to wear hi vis maybe true and that you should not be legally obliged goes to show how little you want to take safety measures and expect motor vehicles to make all comprises. Some cyclists are a menace to pedestrians and motorists. The other day a cyclist with a head cam mounted the pavement to avoid stopping at the red light and if they don't do this then they cycle through pedestrians crossing on the crossing with the green man. I've seen so much stupid antics by cyclists that I've lost all if sympathy.[/p][/quote]I always upload IF I make a mistake, like my last mistake that I made while filtering through traffic going down lances hill, going a little too fast, trying to keep an eye on everything that was going on, lmost went into the back right corner of a truck but managed to stop before I did, again, what good is hi-vis when people don't look or see you but don't care in the first place? Maybe we should ban cars from being painted dark colours, paint them in fluro/dayglo colours, maybe pedestrians should also be made to wear hi vis since they're the ones who are killed and injured the most on our roads and where was it that you saw this helmet cam cyclist mount the pavement to avoid the red light? I mean, if it was Northam bridge, it might have been me as both paths over the bridge there are shared use, making it legal to ride on them, it's also legal to use them to avoid red lights, so as long as they mounted a shared or segregated cycle path, they were within the law to do so to avoid the red light. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -9

6:55pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Maine Lobster says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.
No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.
I have to disagree with your claim that most cyclists have lights. My experience is that they definitely do not. Some, as yourself have excellent visibility equipment and you are no doubt a responsible cyclist but there are many who are not. As for challenging them, you get the finger, abuse or sarcastic waves. This does nothing but increase the poor reputation of cyclists. As for your claim of many being fined for not having lights, I would like to know how you can substantiate that claim, as I regularly see police cars pass illegal cyclists and take no action. A motorist without lights at night would be swooped on.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.[/p][/quote]No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.[/p][/quote]I have to disagree with your claim that most cyclists have lights. My experience is that they definitely do not. Some, as yourself have excellent visibility equipment and you are no doubt a responsible cyclist but there are many who are not. As for challenging them, you get the finger, abuse or sarcastic waves. This does nothing but increase the poor reputation of cyclists. As for your claim of many being fined for not having lights, I would like to know how you can substantiate that claim, as I regularly see police cars pass illegal cyclists and take no action. A motorist without lights at night would be swooped on. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 20

7:01pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Donald2000 says...

Anybody can drive, cycle and be a pedestrian and in each of these incarnations anybody can be a tw$t.

It's up to each and everyone of us to watch out for the other person and if we all did that, then there would not be so many accidents. Stop blaming and start caring, that would be my motto.
Anybody can drive, cycle and be a pedestrian and in each of these incarnations anybody can be a tw$t. It's up to each and everyone of us to watch out for the other person and if we all did that, then there would not be so many accidents. Stop blaming and start caring, that would be my motto. Donald2000
  • Score: 26

7:04pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Triumph Rider says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Triumph Rider wrote:
OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs.

your replies are awaited .....
We don't HAVE to use cycle paths and they are often more dangerous than using the roads, most cyclists do NOT jump red lights and most have lights fitted to the bike, in fact, I myself, have 7 lights fitted to my bike and 2 on my helmet, giving me a total of 9 lights and I make sure they're all charged and switched on before I ride, I turn all but 1 on during the day too, the one I leave off, is my main light that I only use at night and when the weather is abysmal, then I use it on the full 1800Lumen setting but mounted so you can see it coming towards you but it doesn't dazzle motorists.
OK ginger I DID not say push bike riders had to !! just asked why you do not use cycle paths, and how are they more dangerous then a road with cars lorries buses etc moving at speeds up to 50 MPH ??

I ride my motorbike as if every other road user is going to kill me and if there there is a alternative path i would use it

Ginger_cyclist wrote
hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place)

As a motor bike rider I ride full IPE including a Hi vis jacket, reflective beading on all visable clothing from boots to gloves, trousers, Jacket and helmet not because i have to but because i want to be safe also the saying be seen be safe goes for push bike riders and motorbike riders,
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Triumph Rider[/bold] wrote: OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs. your replies are awaited .....[/p][/quote]We don't HAVE to use cycle paths and they are often more dangerous than using the roads, most cyclists do NOT jump red lights and most have lights fitted to the bike, in fact, I myself, have 7 lights fitted to my bike and 2 on my helmet, giving me a total of 9 lights and I make sure they're all charged and switched on before I ride, I turn all but 1 on during the day too, the one I leave off, is my main light that I only use at night and when the weather is abysmal, then I use it on the full 1800Lumen setting but mounted so you can see it coming towards you but it doesn't dazzle motorists.[/p][/quote]OK ginger I DID not say push bike riders had to !! just asked why you do not use cycle paths, and how are they more dangerous then a road with cars lorries buses etc moving at speeds up to 50 MPH ?? I ride my motorbike as if every other road user is going to kill me and if there there is a alternative path i would use it Ginger_cyclist wrote hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) As a motor bike rider I ride full IPE including a Hi vis jacket, reflective beading on all visable clothing from boots to gloves, trousers, Jacket and helmet not because i have to but because i want to be safe also the saying be seen be safe goes for push bike riders and motorbike riders, Triumph Rider
  • Score: 21

7:23pm Sat 1 Mar 14

wwozzer says...

This is shameful opportunism for his political agenda off the back of a tragic ACCIDENT.

Idiots like this would have us back in the stone age given half a chance.
This is shameful opportunism for his political agenda off the back of a tragic ACCIDENT. Idiots like this would have us back in the stone age given half a chance. wwozzer
  • Score: 10

7:40pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.
No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.
I have to disagree with your claim that most cyclists have lights. My experience is that they definitely do not. Some, as yourself have excellent visibility equipment and you are no doubt a responsible cyclist but there are many who are not. As for challenging them, you get the finger, abuse or sarcastic waves. This does nothing but increase the poor reputation of cyclists. As for your claim of many being fined for not having lights, I would like to know how you can substantiate that claim, as I regularly see police cars pass illegal cyclists and take no action. A motorist without lights at night would be swooped on.
Really? I've seen motorists driving around with no lights quite a few times.
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.[/p][/quote]No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.[/p][/quote]I have to disagree with your claim that most cyclists have lights. My experience is that they definitely do not. Some, as yourself have excellent visibility equipment and you are no doubt a responsible cyclist but there are many who are not. As for challenging them, you get the finger, abuse or sarcastic waves. This does nothing but increase the poor reputation of cyclists. As for your claim of many being fined for not having lights, I would like to know how you can substantiate that claim, as I regularly see police cars pass illegal cyclists and take no action. A motorist without lights at night would be swooped on.[/p][/quote]Really? I've seen motorists driving around with no lights quite a few times. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -5

7:40pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Northamer says...

So many ignorant people, I used to ride into Southampton, thought I'd take another vehicle off the road and keep fit at the same time. When I was on my bike my van sat at home with a tax disc on it, some cars pay no tax, I paid £220 this year but that's beside the point as we all pay for the roads through other taxes, the person above who does not drive but believes cyclists should pay, well there is your answer....they do and so do you, so stop thinking road fund licence pays for the whole road system and that car drivers are the only people who pay for our roads.

I did give up after several incidents, It just wasn't worth it, so another vehicle back on the road, I'm not pro cyclist or anti car, or anti/pro pedestrian, everyone has a right to get around, some people can't drive so they ride a bike, some people walk etc. Fact is people have a right to ride, walk, cycle, ride a horse, drive, you cant have a whole society of car drivers.

Triumph rider, all I can say is go and try riding on those routes, you will find they don't actually link up and some are on pavements, if you were trying to get to work it would take you forever, would you take the longest possible route in your car? And why quote parts of the highway code when you could quote the whole book at everyone! You can guarantee that every offence in it is broken every day on the road but you chose 2, both aimed at cyclists and it's a very pedantic view on the lights, I couldn't agree more that anyone not using lights on a bike should be prosecuted but if someone is using lights don't criticise them because it's not fixed to a bike! Lights/batteries and high vis all cheap these days so no excuse.

Anyway you see people breaking the law everyday on the roads, smiling as they chat on their mobiles, speeding, jumping lights, then you see people in the news killed and the smile wiped off the face of the idiot responsible who then expects everyone to feel sorry for them, accidents happen but so many are just caused by people with the wrong attitude to driving and cycling.
So many ignorant people, I used to ride into Southampton, thought I'd take another vehicle off the road and keep fit at the same time. When I was on my bike my van sat at home with a tax disc on it, some cars pay no tax, I paid £220 this year but that's beside the point as we all pay for the roads through other taxes, the person above who does not drive but believes cyclists should pay, well there is your answer....they do and so do you, so stop thinking road fund licence pays for the whole road system and that car drivers are the only people who pay for our roads. I did give up after several incidents, It just wasn't worth it, so another vehicle back on the road, I'm not pro cyclist or anti car, or anti/pro pedestrian, everyone has a right to get around, some people can't drive so they ride a bike, some people walk etc. Fact is people have a right to ride, walk, cycle, ride a horse, drive, you cant have a whole society of car drivers. Triumph rider, all I can say is go and try riding on those routes, you will find they don't actually link up and some are on pavements, if you were trying to get to work it would take you forever, would you take the longest possible route in your car? And why quote parts of the highway code when you could quote the whole book at everyone! You can guarantee that every offence in it is broken every day on the road but you chose 2, both aimed at cyclists and it's a very pedantic view on the lights, I couldn't agree more that anyone not using lights on a bike should be prosecuted but if someone is using lights don't criticise them because it's not fixed to a bike! Lights/batteries and high vis all cheap these days so no excuse. Anyway you see people breaking the law everyday on the roads, smiling as they chat on their mobiles, speeding, jumping lights, then you see people in the news killed and the smile wiped off the face of the idiot responsible who then expects everyone to feel sorry for them, accidents happen but so many are just caused by people with the wrong attitude to driving and cycling. Northamer
  • Score: 15

7:44pm Sat 1 Mar 14

BeyondImagination says...

I nearly had an accident with a cyclist. He was black, wearing dark clothes, no lights. It was raining and very dark. If I hadn't seen a light further down the road and looked again before pulling out, he would likely have been very dead. The first I saw of him was when he passed in front of my headlights. When I pointed this out to him I got a load of abuse.
None of the ideas put forward are perfect solutions, but being seen, keeping as much distance between the cyclist and the motorist will help reduce the obscene number of deaths and serious injuries to cyclists and the grief and trauma to families and friends. Not forgetting the drivers too, none of whom set out to kill or maim but have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.
I nearly had an accident with a cyclist. He was black, wearing dark clothes, no lights. It was raining and very dark. If I hadn't seen a light further down the road and looked again before pulling out, he would likely have been very dead. The first I saw of him was when he passed in front of my headlights. When I pointed this out to him I got a load of abuse. None of the ideas put forward are perfect solutions, but being seen, keeping as much distance between the cyclist and the motorist will help reduce the obscene number of deaths and serious injuries to cyclists and the grief and trauma to families and friends. Not forgetting the drivers too, none of whom set out to kill or maim but have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 14

7:57pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Triumph Rider says...

Northamer wrote:
So many ignorant people, I used to ride into Southampton, thought I'd take another vehicle off the road and keep fit at the same time. When I was on my bike my van sat at home with a tax disc on it, some cars pay no tax, I paid £220 this year but that's beside the point as we all pay for the roads through other taxes, the person above who does not drive but believes cyclists should pay, well there is your answer....they do and so do you, so stop thinking road fund licence pays for the whole road system and that car drivers are the only people who pay for our roads.

I did give up after several incidents, It just wasn't worth it, so another vehicle back on the road, I'm not pro cyclist or anti car, or anti/pro pedestrian, everyone has a right to get around, some people can't drive so they ride a bike, some people walk etc. Fact is people have a right to ride, walk, cycle, ride a horse, drive, you cant have a whole society of car drivers.

Triumph rider, all I can say is go and try riding on those routes, you will find they don't actually link up and some are on pavements, if you were trying to get to work it would take you forever, would you take the longest possible route in your car? And why quote parts of the highway code when you could quote the whole book at everyone! You can guarantee that every offence in it is broken every day on the road but you chose 2, both aimed at cyclists and it's a very pedantic view on the lights, I couldn't agree more that anyone not using lights on a bike should be prosecuted but if someone is using lights don't criticise them because it's not fixed to a bike! Lights/batteries and high vis all cheap these days so no excuse.

Anyway you see people breaking the law everyday on the roads, smiling as they chat on their mobiles, speeding, jumping lights, then you see people in the news killed and the smile wiped off the face of the idiot responsible who then expects everyone to feel sorry for them, accidents happen but so many are just caused by people with the wrong attitude to driving and cycling.
Northamer wrote ..
Triumph rider, all I can say is go and try riding on those routes, you will find they don't actually link up and some are on pavements, if you were trying to get to work it would take you forever, would you take the longest possible route in your car?

I used to cycle to the RSH every day from totton and back and I used the cycle paths when available because ?? I'm not an idiot with a death wish.

If a cycle path is on the pavement it is still safer then riding on the road !

NO would not take the longer route in my car I take a longer route on my motor bike 'cause I LOVE riding it. however if i was on a push bike i would take the longer route if it was safer would'nt you


Also you wrote ......
I couldn't agree more that anyone not using lights on a bike should be prosecuted but if someone is using lights don't criticise them because it's not fixed to a bike! Lights/batteries and high vis all cheap these days so no excuse.

It still a criminal offense not to have lights fixed to the bike ...........
[quote][p][bold]Northamer[/bold] wrote: So many ignorant people, I used to ride into Southampton, thought I'd take another vehicle off the road and keep fit at the same time. When I was on my bike my van sat at home with a tax disc on it, some cars pay no tax, I paid £220 this year but that's beside the point as we all pay for the roads through other taxes, the person above who does not drive but believes cyclists should pay, well there is your answer....they do and so do you, so stop thinking road fund licence pays for the whole road system and that car drivers are the only people who pay for our roads. I did give up after several incidents, It just wasn't worth it, so another vehicle back on the road, I'm not pro cyclist or anti car, or anti/pro pedestrian, everyone has a right to get around, some people can't drive so they ride a bike, some people walk etc. Fact is people have a right to ride, walk, cycle, ride a horse, drive, you cant have a whole society of car drivers. Triumph rider, all I can say is go and try riding on those routes, you will find they don't actually link up and some are on pavements, if you were trying to get to work it would take you forever, would you take the longest possible route in your car? And why quote parts of the highway code when you could quote the whole book at everyone! You can guarantee that every offence in it is broken every day on the road but you chose 2, both aimed at cyclists and it's a very pedantic view on the lights, I couldn't agree more that anyone not using lights on a bike should be prosecuted but if someone is using lights don't criticise them because it's not fixed to a bike! Lights/batteries and high vis all cheap these days so no excuse. Anyway you see people breaking the law everyday on the roads, smiling as they chat on their mobiles, speeding, jumping lights, then you see people in the news killed and the smile wiped off the face of the idiot responsible who then expects everyone to feel sorry for them, accidents happen but so many are just caused by people with the wrong attitude to driving and cycling.[/p][/quote]Northamer wrote .. Triumph rider, all I can say is go and try riding on those routes, you will find they don't actually link up and some are on pavements, if you were trying to get to work it would take you forever, would you take the longest possible route in your car? I used to cycle to the RSH every day from totton and back and I used the cycle paths when available because ?? I'm not an idiot with a death wish. If a cycle path is on the pavement it is still safer then riding on the road ! NO would not take the longer route in my car I take a longer route on my motor bike 'cause I LOVE riding it. however if i was on a push bike i would take the longer route if it was safer would'nt you Also you wrote ...... I couldn't agree more that anyone not using lights on a bike should be prosecuted but if someone is using lights don't criticise them because it's not fixed to a bike! Lights/batteries and high vis all cheap these days so no excuse. It still a criminal offense not to have lights fixed to the bike ........... Triumph Rider
  • Score: 3

7:57pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Triumph Rider wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Triumph Rider wrote:
OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs.

your replies are awaited .....
We don't HAVE to use cycle paths and they are often more dangerous than using the roads, most cyclists do NOT jump red lights and most have lights fitted to the bike, in fact, I myself, have 7 lights fitted to my bike and 2 on my helmet, giving me a total of 9 lights and I make sure they're all charged and switched on before I ride, I turn all but 1 on during the day too, the one I leave off, is my main light that I only use at night and when the weather is abysmal, then I use it on the full 1800Lumen setting but mounted so you can see it coming towards you but it doesn't dazzle motorists.
OK ginger I DID not say push bike riders had to !! just asked why you do not use cycle paths, and how are they more dangerous then a road with cars lorries buses etc moving at speeds up to 50 MPH ??

I ride my motorbike as if every other road user is going to kill me and if there there is a alternative path i would use it

Ginger_cyclist wrote
hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place)

As a motor bike rider I ride full IPE including a Hi vis jacket, reflective beading on all visable clothing from boots to gloves, trousers, Jacket and helmet not because i have to but because i want to be safe also the saying be seen be safe goes for push bike riders and motorbike riders,
Trucks on narrow roads, one of the cycle lanes that follows millbrook road, is a contra flow on a narrow one-way street, very dangerous in itself, especially if you meet a truck coming towards you, not only that but most cycle paths/lanes are VERY poorly maintained, especially in that particular area, cyclists often don't get priority when crossing junctions either, despite the fact that they should be treated as already traveling along the road that the side roads have to give way to, they're also quite often, inadequately marked making it hard to know they're there, a good example is the shared paths that run along Bursledon road, from Hinkler road in Thornhill, past Windhover roundabout and heading down towards the Bursledon area, didn't know they were shared paths? Neither did I until I carefully studied the route map that the Cuncil have with a fine tooth comb and on the map, the path on Thornhill side of Bursledon road is marked as shared use all the way up to the Peugeot dealership, then from there, cyclists can cross over and use the path on the other side all the way past tesco towards Fareham BUT, the only clues as to those paths being shared use, are some markings outside the Eastpoint center and a single, one sided sign up by tesco.
[quote][p][bold]Triumph Rider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Triumph Rider[/bold] wrote: OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs. your replies are awaited .....[/p][/quote]We don't HAVE to use cycle paths and they are often more dangerous than using the roads, most cyclists do NOT jump red lights and most have lights fitted to the bike, in fact, I myself, have 7 lights fitted to my bike and 2 on my helmet, giving me a total of 9 lights and I make sure they're all charged and switched on before I ride, I turn all but 1 on during the day too, the one I leave off, is my main light that I only use at night and when the weather is abysmal, then I use it on the full 1800Lumen setting but mounted so you can see it coming towards you but it doesn't dazzle motorists.[/p][/quote]OK ginger I DID not say push bike riders had to !! just asked why you do not use cycle paths, and how are they more dangerous then a road with cars lorries buses etc moving at speeds up to 50 MPH ?? I ride my motorbike as if every other road user is going to kill me and if there there is a alternative path i would use it Ginger_cyclist wrote hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) As a motor bike rider I ride full IPE including a Hi vis jacket, reflective beading on all visable clothing from boots to gloves, trousers, Jacket and helmet not because i have to but because i want to be safe also the saying be seen be safe goes for push bike riders and motorbike riders,[/p][/quote]Trucks on narrow roads, one of the cycle lanes that follows millbrook road, is a contra flow on a narrow one-way street, very dangerous in itself, especially if you meet a truck coming towards you, not only that but most cycle paths/lanes are VERY poorly maintained, especially in that particular area, cyclists often don't get priority when crossing junctions either, despite the fact that they should be treated as already traveling along the road that the side roads have to give way to, they're also quite often, inadequately marked making it hard to know they're there, a good example is the shared paths that run along Bursledon road, from Hinkler road in Thornhill, past Windhover roundabout and heading down towards the Bursledon area, didn't know they were shared paths? Neither did I until I carefully studied the route map that the Cuncil have with a fine tooth comb and on the map, the path on Thornhill side of Bursledon road is marked as shared use all the way up to the Peugeot dealership, then from there, cyclists can cross over and use the path on the other side all the way past tesco towards Fareham BUT, the only clues as to those paths being shared use, are some markings outside the Eastpoint center and a single, one sided sign up by tesco. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -6

8:04pm Sat 1 Mar 14

charrlee says...

For what my opinion's worth, can I just say that I imagine that Gingercyclist, Downfader and the conspicuously absent Graham Simmons are first-class, experienced cyclists who follow the codes and abide by the law. They are a goldmine of useful advice on the law, and technical matters, and many a novice rider must have benefitted from talking with them.

But for the majority of the forum users, they just get up everybody's noses! We don't want to be corrected, argued with, bullied, taunted, and lectured each time we register a grievance.

Guys, try and see things from other people's point of view instead of defensively fighting every challenger to the death. You'd be a lot more persuasive if you were more easy-going, and agreed with a few critics now and again.
For what my opinion's worth, can I just say that I imagine that Gingercyclist, Downfader and the conspicuously absent Graham Simmons are first-class, experienced cyclists who follow the codes and abide by the law. They are a goldmine of useful advice on the law, and technical matters, and many a novice rider must have benefitted from talking with them. But for the majority of the forum users, they just get up everybody's noses! We don't want to be corrected, argued with, bullied, taunted, and lectured each time we register a grievance. Guys, try and see things from other people's point of view instead of defensively fighting every challenger to the death. You'd be a lot more persuasive if you were more easy-going, and agreed with a few critics now and again. charrlee
  • Score: 1

8:08pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

SpikeFangio wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Triumph Rider wrote:
OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs.

your replies are awaited .....
We don't HAVE to use cycle paths and they are often more dangerous than using the roads, most cyclists do NOT jump red lights and most have lights fitted to the bike, in fact, I myself, have 7 lights fitted to my bike and 2 on my helmet, giving me a total of 9 lights and I make sure they're all charged and switched on before I ride, I turn all but 1 on during the day too, the one I leave off, is my main light that I only use at night and when the weather is abysmal, then I use it on the full 1800Lumen setting but mounted so you can see it coming towards you but it doesn't dazzle motorists.
1diot. How can cycle lanes be more dangerous? Let me see, when was the last time I saw cars. motorbikes, buses and lorries carving up you poor cyclists on a cycle lane, conveniently placed next to a, forgive me I gunna swear, ROAD. Umm.. NEVER. Are you saying the odd pram or pedestrian doing about 4mph causes more "danger"? Cyclist groups moan and complain about the lack of cycle lanes. The ones on West Quay, Mountbatten Way and The Avenue are hardly ever used. They are there at your request so if you choose to not use them by choice then don't grizzle or blame car drivers when you suffer near death episodes. Keep death off the roads and use the bloo** lanes you wanted, remember its not just your health and safety at risk I could swerve to avoid you and squash a hedgehog, squirrel or some other innocent animal minding its own business....And that would be my fault to eh? Advice to all cars drivers is....use your horn cyclists love it !
Junctions, door zones, pedestrians, being forced back onto the road at stupid places, disrepair, vehicles illegally parked on cycle paths and in cycle lanes, motorbikes riding on them illegally, should I keep on with listing how they're dangerous? of the 3 cycle paths you mentioned, 2 are in severe disrepair and the one on the Avenue, often has people parked on it and people not looking both ways before driving across it, also, government guidelines say NOT to use cycle paths/lanes if you expect to be traveling at more than 18-20mph , also, cycle lanes are ofte too narrow, government says they should be a MINIMUM of 1.5 meters wide, most are less than a meter wide and some advice to you stupid, use your horn against me and I'll return the favour with my own horn that would put yours to shame and embarass you.
[quote][p][bold]SpikeFangio[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Triumph Rider[/bold] wrote: OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs. your replies are awaited .....[/p][/quote]We don't HAVE to use cycle paths and they are often more dangerous than using the roads, most cyclists do NOT jump red lights and most have lights fitted to the bike, in fact, I myself, have 7 lights fitted to my bike and 2 on my helmet, giving me a total of 9 lights and I make sure they're all charged and switched on before I ride, I turn all but 1 on during the day too, the one I leave off, is my main light that I only use at night and when the weather is abysmal, then I use it on the full 1800Lumen setting but mounted so you can see it coming towards you but it doesn't dazzle motorists.[/p][/quote]1diot. How can cycle lanes be more dangerous? Let me see, when was the last time I saw cars. motorbikes, buses and lorries carving up you poor cyclists on a cycle lane, conveniently placed next to a, forgive me I gunna swear, ROAD. Umm.. NEVER. Are you saying the odd pram or pedestrian doing about 4mph causes more "danger"? Cyclist groups moan and complain about the lack of cycle lanes. The ones on West Quay, Mountbatten Way and The Avenue are hardly ever used. They are there at your request so if you choose to not use them by choice then don't grizzle or blame car drivers when you suffer near death episodes. Keep death off the roads and use the bloo** lanes you wanted, remember its not just your health and safety at risk I could swerve to avoid you and squash a hedgehog, squirrel or some other innocent animal minding its own business....And that would be my fault to eh? Advice to all cars drivers is....use your horn cyclists love it ![/p][/quote]Junctions, door zones, pedestrians, being forced back onto the road at stupid places, disrepair, vehicles illegally parked on cycle paths and in cycle lanes, motorbikes riding on them illegally, should I keep on with listing how they're dangerous? of the 3 cycle paths you mentioned, 2 are in severe disrepair and the one on the Avenue, often has people parked on it and people not looking both ways before driving across it, also, government guidelines say NOT to use cycle paths/lanes if you expect to be traveling at more than 18-20mph , also, cycle lanes are ofte too narrow, government says they should be a MINIMUM of 1.5 meters wide, most are less than a meter wide and some advice to you stupid, use your horn against me and I'll return the favour with my own horn that would put yours to shame and embarass you. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -12

9:09pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Northamer says...

Triumph Rider wrote:
Northamer wrote:
So many ignorant people, I used to ride into Southampton, thought I'd take another vehicle off the road and keep fit at the same time. When I was on my bike my van sat at home with a tax disc on it, some cars pay no tax, I paid £220 this year but that's beside the point as we all pay for the roads through other taxes, the person above who does not drive but believes cyclists should pay, well there is your answer....they do and so do you, so stop thinking road fund licence pays for the whole road system and that car drivers are the only people who pay for our roads.

I did give up after several incidents, It just wasn't worth it, so another vehicle back on the road, I'm not pro cyclist or anti car, or anti/pro pedestrian, everyone has a right to get around, some people can't drive so they ride a bike, some people walk etc. Fact is people have a right to ride, walk, cycle, ride a horse, drive, you cant have a whole society of car drivers.

Triumph rider, all I can say is go and try riding on those routes, you will find they don't actually link up and some are on pavements, if you were trying to get to work it would take you forever, would you take the longest possible route in your car? And why quote parts of the highway code when you could quote the whole book at everyone! You can guarantee that every offence in it is broken every day on the road but you chose 2, both aimed at cyclists and it's a very pedantic view on the lights, I couldn't agree more that anyone not using lights on a bike should be prosecuted but if someone is using lights don't criticise them because it's not fixed to a bike! Lights/batteries and high vis all cheap these days so no excuse.

Anyway you see people breaking the law everyday on the roads, smiling as they chat on their mobiles, speeding, jumping lights, then you see people in the news killed and the smile wiped off the face of the idiot responsible who then expects everyone to feel sorry for them, accidents happen but so many are just caused by people with the wrong attitude to driving and cycling.
Northamer wrote ..
Triumph rider, all I can say is go and try riding on those routes, you will find they don't actually link up and some are on pavements, if you were trying to get to work it would take you forever, would you take the longest possible route in your car?

I used to cycle to the RSH every day from totton and back and I used the cycle paths when available because ?? I'm not an idiot with a death wish.

If a cycle path is on the pavement it is still safer then riding on the road !

NO would not take the longer route in my car I take a longer route on my motor bike 'cause I LOVE riding it. however if i was on a push bike i would take the longer route if it was safer would'nt you


Also you wrote ......
I couldn't agree more that anyone not using lights on a bike should be prosecuted but if someone is using lights don't criticise them because it's not fixed to a bike! Lights/batteries and high vis all cheap these days so no excuse.

It still a criminal offense not to have lights fixed to the bike ...........
As I said I don't ride anymore because it is too dangerous and yes cycle lanes and pavements may be safer for the cyclist (not pedestrians) you missed the point on the lights, if someone has lights and the sense to wear a helmet can you see the Police prosecuting them? Why would they and wouldn't that be a waste of time? I don't have a highway code handy, is it a criminal offence? what's the penalty?
[quote][p][bold]Triumph Rider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Northamer[/bold] wrote: So many ignorant people, I used to ride into Southampton, thought I'd take another vehicle off the road and keep fit at the same time. When I was on my bike my van sat at home with a tax disc on it, some cars pay no tax, I paid £220 this year but that's beside the point as we all pay for the roads through other taxes, the person above who does not drive but believes cyclists should pay, well there is your answer....they do and so do you, so stop thinking road fund licence pays for the whole road system and that car drivers are the only people who pay for our roads. I did give up after several incidents, It just wasn't worth it, so another vehicle back on the road, I'm not pro cyclist or anti car, or anti/pro pedestrian, everyone has a right to get around, some people can't drive so they ride a bike, some people walk etc. Fact is people have a right to ride, walk, cycle, ride a horse, drive, you cant have a whole society of car drivers. Triumph rider, all I can say is go and try riding on those routes, you will find they don't actually link up and some are on pavements, if you were trying to get to work it would take you forever, would you take the longest possible route in your car? And why quote parts of the highway code when you could quote the whole book at everyone! You can guarantee that every offence in it is broken every day on the road but you chose 2, both aimed at cyclists and it's a very pedantic view on the lights, I couldn't agree more that anyone not using lights on a bike should be prosecuted but if someone is using lights don't criticise them because it's not fixed to a bike! Lights/batteries and high vis all cheap these days so no excuse. Anyway you see people breaking the law everyday on the roads, smiling as they chat on their mobiles, speeding, jumping lights, then you see people in the news killed and the smile wiped off the face of the idiot responsible who then expects everyone to feel sorry for them, accidents happen but so many are just caused by people with the wrong attitude to driving and cycling.[/p][/quote]Northamer wrote .. Triumph rider, all I can say is go and try riding on those routes, you will find they don't actually link up and some are on pavements, if you were trying to get to work it would take you forever, would you take the longest possible route in your car? I used to cycle to the RSH every day from totton and back and I used the cycle paths when available because ?? I'm not an idiot with a death wish. If a cycle path is on the pavement it is still safer then riding on the road ! NO would not take the longer route in my car I take a longer route on my motor bike 'cause I LOVE riding it. however if i was on a push bike i would take the longer route if it was safer would'nt you Also you wrote ...... I couldn't agree more that anyone not using lights on a bike should be prosecuted but if someone is using lights don't criticise them because it's not fixed to a bike! Lights/batteries and high vis all cheap these days so no excuse. It still a criminal offense not to have lights fixed to the bike ...........[/p][/quote]As I said I don't ride anymore because it is too dangerous and yes cycle lanes and pavements may be safer for the cyclist (not pedestrians) you missed the point on the lights, if someone has lights and the sense to wear a helmet can you see the Police prosecuting them? Why would they and wouldn't that be a waste of time? I don't have a highway code handy, is it a criminal offence? what's the penalty? Northamer
  • Score: 2

9:24pm Sat 1 Mar 14

downfader says...

Much of the debate has been used as clickbait by the paper lately, I am sad to say.
Much of the debate has been used as clickbait by the paper lately, I am sad to say. downfader
  • Score: 5

9:52pm Sat 1 Mar 14

downfader says...

Triumph Rider wrote:
OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs.

your replies are awaited .....
This has been covered so often on the web I think you could do well to search the cycling forums online...

With The Avenue I've been moaned at by pedestrians several times over the years. The trouble is the cycling sections are full of walkers, and they fan out across the shared sections. Its quicker to use the buslane.

And if I use the buslane I dont have to contend with drivers that ignore the giveway markings:
http://goo.gl/maps/M
CbU1

Or park on the cycle lane:
http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/yoursay/lette
rs/10989650.Drivers_
should_be_allowed_to
_park_on_cycle_lanes
_and_pavements/

If you want to know why a rider takes a position on the road then read:
http://www.britishcy
cling.org.uk/commuti
ng/article/trav20111
121-Effective-Traffi
c-Riding-home0 (Based upon Bikeability training that many cyclists have taken and read)

There is no law about wearing helmets or backpacks so please read this:
http://rdrf.org.uk/2
013/12/17/the-effect
s-of-new-zealands-cy
cle-helmet-law/
They dont make cycling safer - as we have learned from recent weeks only safer driving will.

With cycle lights - only legal at night. Unit riders account for 2% of all collisions in DFT stats. All the riders I speak to are happy for the Police to enforce this law.
[quote][p][bold]Triumph Rider[/bold] wrote: OK will a push bike rider please tell me WHY do you insist on riding on Duel-carrigeways etc when there are Cycle paths along both sides of the road ie West Quay road Millbrook road, Totton bypass, the Avenue all etc, etc etc and also why do you think you are allowed to ride against a red traffic light (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1) also ride with no lights attached to the bike (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) not on cycle helmets back packs. your replies are awaited .....[/p][/quote]This has been covered so often on the web I think you could do well to search the cycling forums online... With The Avenue I've been moaned at by pedestrians several times over the years. The trouble is the cycling sections are full of walkers, and they fan out across the shared sections. Its quicker to use the buslane. And if I use the buslane I dont have to contend with drivers that ignore the giveway markings: http://goo.gl/maps/M CbU1 Or park on the cycle lane: http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/10989650.Drivers_ should_be_allowed_to _park_on_cycle_lanes _and_pavements/ If you want to know why a rider takes a position on the road then read: http://www.britishcy cling.org.uk/commuti ng/article/trav20111 121-Effective-Traffi c-Riding-home0 (Based upon Bikeability training that many cyclists have taken and read) There is no law about wearing helmets or backpacks so please read this: http://rdrf.org.uk/2 013/12/17/the-effect s-of-new-zealands-cy cle-helmet-law/ They dont make cycling safer - as we have learned from recent weeks only safer driving will. With cycle lights - only legal at night. Unit riders account for 2% of all collisions in DFT stats. All the riders I speak to are happy for the Police to enforce this law. downfader
  • Score: 10

10:10pm Sat 1 Mar 14

George4th says...

Many car drivers have an arrogance born out of being in control of a lump of metal that travels at high speed. It's as if they rule their own little world! They do not pay enough care and attention.

When was the last time you saw a cyclist putting on their make-up while cycling? Or shaving, or reading a newspaper, or using a lap top, or speeding at 60 mph in a 30mph limit?? Etc. etc. etc. For some reason, many car drivers think they are immune and are therefore oblivious to others. The majority of car drivers drive at a speed above the maximum limit - do they think it''s wrong? NO!!! But it most defonitely is.
Are you honest enough to admit it?!

Everytime you drive above the MAXIMUM speed limit you are not only breaking the law but you are risking causing death by your stupidity. Do they care? NO!

Yes, I know there are responsible drivers too!

Car drivers have the same arrogance that many smokers had, and many dog owners still do! - they do not think about others.

For the record, I walk, cycle and drive.
Many car drivers have an arrogance born out of being in control of a lump of metal that travels at high speed. It's as if they rule their own little world! They do not pay enough care and attention. When was the last time you saw a cyclist putting on their make-up while cycling? Or shaving, or reading a newspaper, or using a lap top, or speeding at 60 mph in a 30mph limit?? Etc. etc. etc. For some reason, many car drivers think they are immune and are therefore oblivious to others. The majority of car drivers drive at a speed above the maximum limit - do they think it''s wrong? NO!!! But it most defonitely is. Are you honest enough to admit it?! Everytime you drive above the MAXIMUM speed limit you are not only breaking the law but you are risking causing death by your stupidity. Do they care? NO! Yes, I know there are responsible drivers too! Car drivers have the same arrogance that many smokers had, and many dog owners still do! - they do not think about others. For the record, I walk, cycle and drive. George4th
  • Score: 5

10:41pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Keith Peat says...

Huffter wrote:
According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.
Brilliant stuff.

This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else.

So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver.

There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.
[quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.[/p][/quote]Brilliant stuff. This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else. So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver. There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May. Keith Peat
  • Score: -7

10:48pm Sat 1 Mar 14

downfader says...

Keith Peat wrote:
Huffter wrote:
According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.
Brilliant stuff.

This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else.

So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver.

There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.
As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike.

Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc.

You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers.
[quote][p][bold]Keith Peat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.[/p][/quote]Brilliant stuff. This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else. So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver. There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.[/p][/quote]As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike. Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc. You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers. downfader
  • Score: 8

10:51pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

downfader wrote:
Keith Peat wrote:
Huffter wrote:
According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.
Brilliant stuff.

This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else.

So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver.

There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.
As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike.

Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc.

You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers.
Old Keithy just wants us all to sit in a never ending traffic jam like in the Doctor Who episode "Gridlock".
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith Peat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.[/p][/quote]Brilliant stuff. This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else. So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver. There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.[/p][/quote]As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike. Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc. You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers.[/p][/quote]Old Keithy just wants us all to sit in a never ending traffic jam like in the Doctor Who episode "Gridlock". Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 8

10:59pm Sat 1 Mar 14

downfader says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
downfader wrote:
Keith Peat wrote:
Huffter wrote:
According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.
Brilliant stuff.

This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else.

So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver.

There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.
As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike.

Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc.

You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers.
Old Keithy just wants us all to sit in a never ending traffic jam like in the Doctor Who episode "Gridlock".
Fuel costs a fortune. Even if all the tax was removed from it - it would still be an expense. I really dont understand why many drivers bother.

People can s1ag off the Greens as much as they like, trouble is when they're right they are VERY right. Think about kids as one example - they are exposed to twice the levels of air pollution simply because their heads wont reach above it.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith Peat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.[/p][/quote]Brilliant stuff. This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else. So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver. There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.[/p][/quote]As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike. Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc. You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers.[/p][/quote]Old Keithy just wants us all to sit in a never ending traffic jam like in the Doctor Who episode "Gridlock".[/p][/quote]Fuel costs a fortune. Even if all the tax was removed from it - it would still be an expense. I really dont understand why many drivers bother. People can s1ag off the Greens as much as they like, trouble is when they're right they are VERY right. Think about kids as one example - they are exposed to twice the levels of air pollution simply because their heads wont reach above it. downfader
  • Score: 3

11:02pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

downfader wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
downfader wrote:
Keith Peat wrote:
Huffter wrote:
According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.
Brilliant stuff.

This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else.

So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver.

There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.
As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike.

Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc.

You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers.
Old Keithy just wants us all to sit in a never ending traffic jam like in the Doctor Who episode "Gridlock".
Fuel costs a fortune. Even if all the tax was removed from it - it would still be an expense. I really dont understand why many drivers bother.

People can s1ag off the Greens as much as they like, trouble is when they're right they are VERY right. Think about kids as one example - they are exposed to twice the levels of air pollution simply because their heads wont reach above it.
Indeed.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith Peat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.[/p][/quote]Brilliant stuff. This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else. So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver. There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.[/p][/quote]As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike. Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc. You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers.[/p][/quote]Old Keithy just wants us all to sit in a never ending traffic jam like in the Doctor Who episode "Gridlock".[/p][/quote]Fuel costs a fortune. Even if all the tax was removed from it - it would still be an expense. I really dont understand why many drivers bother. People can s1ag off the Greens as much as they like, trouble is when they're right they are VERY right. Think about kids as one example - they are exposed to twice the levels of air pollution simply because their heads wont reach above it.[/p][/quote]Indeed. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:09am Sun 2 Mar 14

car driver says...

Why is it if we go through a red light its a penalty yet cyclists seem to think they are exempt and then cycle across the path of the cars waiting and helmets well they will ruin the hairstyle same with motorbikes try the marchwood bypass thats a race course but if a fatality always the car drivers fault
Why is it if we go through a red light its a penalty yet cyclists seem to think they are exempt and then cycle across the path of the cars waiting and helmets well they will ruin the hairstyle same with motorbikes try the marchwood bypass thats a race course but if a fatality always the car drivers fault car driver
  • Score: 0

12:28am Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
downfader wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
downfader wrote:
Keith Peat wrote:
Huffter wrote:
According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.
Brilliant stuff.

This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else.

So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver.

There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.
As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike.

Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc.

You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers.
Old Keithy just wants us all to sit in a never ending traffic jam like in the Doctor Who episode "Gridlock".
Fuel costs a fortune. Even if all the tax was removed from it - it would still be an expense. I really dont understand why many drivers bother.

People can s1ag off the Greens as much as they like, trouble is when they're right they are VERY right. Think about kids as one example - they are exposed to twice the levels of air pollution simply because their heads wont reach above it.
Indeed.
This is all going very well, isn't it? Everyone seems convinced by what you two have to say, don't they?

I'm a keen cyclist, and so are my friends. But we dislike you two because you bully and shout here and give us all a bad name.

We don't need your sort. Please go away unless you intend to become more reader-friendly.

We recognise your experience and expertise. But your pompous attitudes stink.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith Peat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.[/p][/quote]Brilliant stuff. This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else. So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver. There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.[/p][/quote]As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike. Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc. You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers.[/p][/quote]Old Keithy just wants us all to sit in a never ending traffic jam like in the Doctor Who episode "Gridlock".[/p][/quote]Fuel costs a fortune. Even if all the tax was removed from it - it would still be an expense. I really dont understand why many drivers bother. People can s1ag off the Greens as much as they like, trouble is when they're right they are VERY right. Think about kids as one example - they are exposed to twice the levels of air pollution simply because their heads wont reach above it.[/p][/quote]Indeed.[/p][/quote]This is all going very well, isn't it? Everyone seems convinced by what you two have to say, don't they? I'm a keen cyclist, and so are my friends. But we dislike you two because you bully and shout here and give us all a bad name. We don't need your sort. Please go away unless you intend to become more reader-friendly. We recognise your experience and expertise. But your pompous attitudes stink. charrlee
  • Score: 2

1:31am Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
downfader wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
downfader wrote:
Keith Peat wrote:
Huffter wrote:
According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.
Brilliant stuff.

This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else.

So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver.

There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.
As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike.

Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc.

You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers.
Old Keithy just wants us all to sit in a never ending traffic jam like in the Doctor Who episode "Gridlock".
Fuel costs a fortune. Even if all the tax was removed from it - it would still be an expense. I really dont understand why many drivers bother.

People can s1ag off the Greens as much as they like, trouble is when they're right they are VERY right. Think about kids as one example - they are exposed to twice the levels of air pollution simply because their heads wont reach above it.
Indeed.
This is all going very well, isn't it? Everyone seems convinced by what you two have to say, don't they?

I'm a keen cyclist, and so are my friends. But we dislike you two because you bully and shout here and give us all a bad name.

We don't need your sort. Please go away unless you intend to become more reader-friendly.

We recognise your experience and expertise. But your pompous attitudes stink.
And we don't need people like Keith "Motormouth" Peat trying to blames for every little thing that happens on the roads, he blames us for holding up traffic everywhere(kind of impossible on motorways), blaming us for collisions, tries to say we "impose slow speeds" on motorists when we don't, says that an overtake is safe no matter ow close the overtaking vehicle gets so long as no contact is made, says that 20 zones(even around schools) are stupid, claims no cyclist is insured at all, claims we all break the law, claims we don't pay for the roads, says speed cameras have no other purpose than to make money and even goes as far as saying that many roads including motorways should have a limit that's 10mph higher than it is or be national speed limit of 70, he says all this, despite being proven wrong, beyond doubt, about everything he says, each time he brings it up, do we really need someone like that who appointed HIMSELF as a road safety expert? Also e claims to have been an advanced driver for the police at one point which is total bull because his driving, seen in footage from his OWN dash cam that he put on youtube, begs to differ.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keith Peat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.[/p][/quote]Brilliant stuff. This MEP doesn't get it. These figures prove what I have been arguing. Yes we need 2014 revolutionary thinking and ask why do we need humans mixing, mingling, competing with large essential fast moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. A concept that would be utter madness if it were anything else. So why do we have cyclists? Society only depends on walkers and drivers on the road. Road infrastructure should never be based on the machinations of green ideology which is predictably anti driver. There's a thought. Take his name drivers and make sure he's out in May.[/p][/quote]As I said to you on twitter (before you had the little tantrum and blocked everyone) - cyclists do important jobs too. Look at the 1500 cyclists within the Southampton Hospital Trust for one. 17% of all that Trust is arriving by bike. Where are you all going to park your cars? 9/10ths of the day cars block the free-flow of other traffic as well as access to emergency vehicles, refuse lorries etc. You've never once held a convincing argument even to many drivers.[/p][/quote]Old Keithy just wants us all to sit in a never ending traffic jam like in the Doctor Who episode "Gridlock".[/p][/quote]Fuel costs a fortune. Even if all the tax was removed from it - it would still be an expense. I really dont understand why many drivers bother. People can s1ag off the Greens as much as they like, trouble is when they're right they are VERY right. Think about kids as one example - they are exposed to twice the levels of air pollution simply because their heads wont reach above it.[/p][/quote]Indeed.[/p][/quote]This is all going very well, isn't it? Everyone seems convinced by what you two have to say, don't they? I'm a keen cyclist, and so are my friends. But we dislike you two because you bully and shout here and give us all a bad name. We don't need your sort. Please go away unless you intend to become more reader-friendly. We recognise your experience and expertise. But your pompous attitudes stink.[/p][/quote]And we don't need people like Keith "Motormouth" Peat trying to blames for every little thing that happens on the roads, he blames us for holding up traffic everywhere(kind of impossible on motorways), blaming us for collisions, tries to say we "impose slow speeds" on motorists when we don't, says that an overtake is safe no matter ow close the overtaking vehicle gets so long as no contact is made, says that 20 zones(even around schools) are stupid, claims no cyclist is insured at all, claims we all break the law, claims we don't pay for the roads, says speed cameras have no other purpose than to make money and even goes as far as saying that many roads including motorways should have a limit that's 10mph higher than it is or be national speed limit of 70, he says all this, despite being proven wrong, beyond doubt, about everything he says, each time he brings it up, do we really need someone like that who appointed HIMSELF as a road safety expert? Also e claims to have been an advanced driver for the police at one point which is total bull because his driving, seen in footage from his OWN dash cam that he put on youtube, begs to differ. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

3:04am Sun 2 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

Well i see many cyclists with lights and hi vis jackets STILL go thru very dangerous lights like the one i saw the other night in Woolston. If cyclists want to gain respect they should help rebuild their reputation by trying to not do things that irritate car drivers and vice versa. I think re education of everyone is the only solution
Well i see many cyclists with lights and hi vis jackets STILL go thru very dangerous lights like the one i saw the other night in Woolston. If cyclists want to gain respect they should help rebuild their reputation by trying to not do things that irritate car drivers and vice versa. I think re education of everyone is the only solution Mary80
  • Score: 1

6:35am Sun 2 Mar 14

elvisimo says...

theresasurprise wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world
You are talking out of your backside
Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move.
I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..
Yeah the pavement is awash with cyclists. Tens of thousands, you see them all the time and most of the are no doubt foreign on route to a job interview.
[quote][p][bold]theresasurprise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world[/p][/quote]You are talking out of your backside[/p][/quote]Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move. I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..[/p][/quote]Yeah the pavement is awash with cyclists. Tens of thousands, you see them all the time and most of the are no doubt foreign on route to a job interview. elvisimo
  • Score: 1

7:53am Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

elvisimo wrote:
theresasurprise wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world
You are talking out of your backside
Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move.
I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..
Yeah the pavement is awash with cyclists. Tens of thousands, you see them all the time and most of the are no doubt foreign on route to a job interview.
So how do you see your overt sarcasm helping this debate in a positive way, Elvissimo?
No cyclist should be on any pavement unless it has been designated dual usage. Isn't that right, Elvissimo? Well, isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theresasurprise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world[/p][/quote]You are talking out of your backside[/p][/quote]Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move. I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..[/p][/quote]Yeah the pavement is awash with cyclists. Tens of thousands, you see them all the time and most of the are no doubt foreign on route to a job interview.[/p][/quote]So how do you see your overt sarcasm helping this debate in a positive way, Elvissimo? No cyclist should be on any pavement unless it has been designated dual usage. Isn't that right, Elvissimo? Well, isn't it? charrlee
  • Score: 3

8:52am Sun 2 Mar 14

Richard 51 says...

Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that. Richard 51
  • Score: 0

9:02am Sun 2 Mar 14

beesdee says...

I think that the majority of road users (all vehicles, including cycles) seem to have become used to an almost complete lack of police presence on the roads, and consequently do whatever they like without fear of prosecution.
Cars with one headlight, cars with b... front fog lights on because they think it looks good, speeding, cyclists without lights on the dark, cyclists riding against the flow of traffic over Itchen bridge etc. When I started driving nearly 40 years ago, people seemed to play by the rules more, and if you didn't you were likely to get caught, but not now.
I think that the majority of road users (all vehicles, including cycles) seem to have become used to an almost complete lack of police presence on the roads, and consequently do whatever they like without fear of prosecution. Cars with one headlight, cars with b... front fog lights on because they think it looks good, speeding, cyclists without lights on the dark, cyclists riding against the flow of traffic over Itchen bridge etc. When I started driving nearly 40 years ago, people seemed to play by the rules more, and if you didn't you were likely to get caught, but not now. beesdee
  • Score: 10

9:09am Sun 2 Mar 14

downfader says...

Mary80 wrote:
Well i see many cyclists with lights and hi vis jackets STILL go thru very dangerous lights like the one i saw the other night in Woolston. If cyclists want to gain respect they should help rebuild their reputation by trying to not do things that irritate car drivers and vice versa. I think re education of everyone is the only solution
Cyclists don't need drivers respect for them to use the car in a sensible and safe manner. It is something drivers should be doing regardless and making excuses of the "but they go through red lights" is pretty petty for any motorist to do so.

It is flogging a dead horse. Lest we also forget the high numbers of drivers who blast reds. Any driver who suggests "drivers get fined for doing it" is also telling fibs given how many still do it. Where are these fines?

The Police must be rolling in money.
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Well i see many cyclists with lights and hi vis jackets STILL go thru very dangerous lights like the one i saw the other night in Woolston. If cyclists want to gain respect they should help rebuild their reputation by trying to not do things that irritate car drivers and vice versa. I think re education of everyone is the only solution[/p][/quote]Cyclists don't need drivers respect for them to use the car in a sensible and safe manner. It is something drivers should be doing regardless and making excuses of the "but they go through red lights" is pretty petty for any motorist to do so. It is flogging a dead horse. Lest we also forget the high numbers of drivers who blast reds. Any driver who suggests "drivers get fined for doing it" is also telling fibs given how many still do it. Where are these fines? The Police must be rolling in money. downfader
  • Score: 2

9:38am Sun 2 Mar 14

Brock_and_Roll says...

Must be a record...50 posts so far and there has not been a single loonie banging on about UKIP and trying to make a far fetched tie-in between cycling and Poles!
Must be a record...50 posts so far and there has not been a single loonie banging on about UKIP and trying to make a far fetched tie-in between cycling and Poles! Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 2

9:43am Sun 2 Mar 14

BorislawGeorgiew says...

beesdee wrote:
I think that the majority of road users (all vehicles, including cycles) seem to have become used to an almost complete lack of police presence on the roads, and consequently do whatever they like without fear of prosecution.
Cars with one headlight, cars with b... front fog lights on because they think it looks good, speeding, cyclists without lights on the dark, cyclists riding against the flow of traffic over Itchen bridge etc. When I started driving nearly 40 years ago, people seemed to play by the rules more, and if you didn't you were likely to get caught, but not now.
It's a valid point, there are plenty of Police cars but you can't see them any more because they are unmarked. The Police seem to think it's better to catch people by stealth than actually let people see a highly visible Police presence on the road.
I think it would work better if people could see the Police on the road, I mean nobody overtakes a Police car do they?
And they should stop hiding behind walls and blind bends as well.
[quote][p][bold]beesdee[/bold] wrote: I think that the majority of road users (all vehicles, including cycles) seem to have become used to an almost complete lack of police presence on the roads, and consequently do whatever they like without fear of prosecution. Cars with one headlight, cars with b... front fog lights on because they think it looks good, speeding, cyclists without lights on the dark, cyclists riding against the flow of traffic over Itchen bridge etc. When I started driving nearly 40 years ago, people seemed to play by the rules more, and if you didn't you were likely to get caught, but not now.[/p][/quote]It's a valid point, there are plenty of Police cars but you can't see them any more because they are unmarked. The Police seem to think it's better to catch people by stealth than actually let people see a highly visible Police presence on the road. I think it would work better if people could see the Police on the road, I mean nobody overtakes a Police car do they? And they should stop hiding behind walls and blind bends as well. BorislawGeorgiew
  • Score: 0

9:54am Sun 2 Mar 14

downfader says...

BorislawGeorgiew wrote:
beesdee wrote:
I think that the majority of road users (all vehicles, including cycles) seem to have become used to an almost complete lack of police presence on the roads, and consequently do whatever they like without fear of prosecution.
Cars with one headlight, cars with b... front fog lights on because they think it looks good, speeding, cyclists without lights on the dark, cyclists riding against the flow of traffic over Itchen bridge etc. When I started driving nearly 40 years ago, people seemed to play by the rules more, and if you didn't you were likely to get caught, but not now.
It's a valid point, there are plenty of Police cars but you can't see them any more because they are unmarked. The Police seem to think it's better to catch people by stealth than actually let people see a highly visible Police presence on the road.
I think it would work better if people could see the Police on the road, I mean nobody overtakes a Police car do they?
And they should stop hiding behind walls and blind bends as well.
No. Let them hide behind walls and blind bends. That is what catches the naughties.

And there aint that many unmarked Police cars - as I said earlier if there were they'd be rolling in it. And people have got to stop exploiting the Police situation for their own habits... change your habits, stop breaking the speed limit laws, running the lights or whatever on whatever vehicle you use.
[quote][p][bold]BorislawGeorgiew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beesdee[/bold] wrote: I think that the majority of road users (all vehicles, including cycles) seem to have become used to an almost complete lack of police presence on the roads, and consequently do whatever they like without fear of prosecution. Cars with one headlight, cars with b... front fog lights on because they think it looks good, speeding, cyclists without lights on the dark, cyclists riding against the flow of traffic over Itchen bridge etc. When I started driving nearly 40 years ago, people seemed to play by the rules more, and if you didn't you were likely to get caught, but not now.[/p][/quote]It's a valid point, there are plenty of Police cars but you can't see them any more because they are unmarked. The Police seem to think it's better to catch people by stealth than actually let people see a highly visible Police presence on the road. I think it would work better if people could see the Police on the road, I mean nobody overtakes a Police car do they? And they should stop hiding behind walls and blind bends as well.[/p][/quote]No. Let them hide behind walls and blind bends. That is what catches the naughties. And there aint that many unmarked Police cars - as I said earlier if there were they'd be rolling in it. And people have got to stop exploiting the Police situation for their own habits... change your habits, stop breaking the speed limit laws, running the lights or whatever on whatever vehicle you use. downfader
  • Score: 1

10:04am Sun 2 Mar 14

BorislawGeorgiew says...

Better a dove on the plate than a woodgrouse in the mating place.
Better a dove on the plate than a woodgrouse in the mating place. BorislawGeorgiew
  • Score: -5

10:23am Sun 2 Mar 14

Researcher75 says...

What on earth has happened to us? - cyclists (not all) taking dangerous liberties; vehicle drivers (not all) appearing to give little consideration to ALL road users, and most seriously in my opinion is this latest farce of saying that the driver of a vehicle was so close to another road user so as to hit him and kill him, that he was not at fault? - despite the fact the Road Traffic Act stating that cyclists should be given sufficient clearance so as to NOT endanger life, or words to that effect. Sufficient clearance should be given to all other road users, despite ones' own personal enmity feelings that may prevail towards others, which amounts to carelessness in any language or a couldn't-care-less attitude.
What on earth has happened to us? - cyclists (not all) taking dangerous liberties; vehicle drivers (not all) appearing to give little consideration to ALL road users, and most seriously in my opinion is this latest farce of saying that the driver of a vehicle was so close to another road user so as to hit him and kill him, that he was not at fault? - despite the fact the Road Traffic Act stating that cyclists should be given sufficient clearance so as to NOT endanger life, or words to that effect. Sufficient clearance should be given to all other road users, despite ones' own personal enmity feelings that may prevail towards others, which amounts to carelessness in any language or a couldn't-care-less attitude. Researcher75
  • Score: 7

11:00am Sun 2 Mar 14

espanuel says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.
No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.
High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.[/p][/quote]No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.[/p][/quote]High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily. espanuel
  • Score: 0

11:45am Sun 2 Mar 14

ScaredAmoeba says...

It is motor-vehicles who kill the lion's share of vulnerable road users. Between 2005 and 2009 motor-vehicles killed 226 pedestrians on the footway or verge (colloquially the pavement). That's one pedestrian killed by a motor-vehicle on the pavement every 8 days. For comparison, over the same interval, pedal cycles were involved in pedestrian deaths on the footway / pavement at the rate of one every three years four months.
That means for every pedestrian killed by a pavement cyclist, there were 151 pedestrians killed by a pavement driver.
It's clear who's causing the danger to pedestrians and by a massive margin.

Driving licences need to be easier to lose and lost for longer. And those who kill or maim need to be banned for life.
No more driver discounts and no more driving after twelve points.
It is motor-vehicles who kill the lion's share of vulnerable road users. Between 2005 and 2009 motor-vehicles killed 226 pedestrians on the footway or verge (colloquially the pavement). That's one pedestrian killed by a motor-vehicle on the pavement every 8 days. For comparison, over the same interval, pedal cycles were involved in pedestrian deaths on the footway / pavement at the rate of one every three years four months. That means for every pedestrian killed by a pavement cyclist, there were 151 pedestrians killed by a pavement driver. It's clear who's causing the danger to pedestrians and by a massive margin. Driving licences need to be easier to lose and lost for longer. And those who kill or maim need to be banned for life. No more driver discounts and no more driving after twelve points. ScaredAmoeba
  • Score: 6

12:27pm Sun 2 Mar 14

downfader says...

espanuel wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.
No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.
High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily.
http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/b
ike-blog/2013/jan/10
/cycling-high-visibi
lity-safe-fluorescen
t

and

https://www.cyclingw
eekly.co.uk/news/lat
est-news/study-finds
-hi-viz-clothing-has
-no-effect-on-driver
-passing-distances-2
3061

Both detail why high visibility isnt a cure. I've worn it, it makes no difference to driver behaviour in my personal cicumstances

If we regard health and safety as a guide to road issues we find that PPE is way down the list:
http://upload.wikime
dia.org/wikipedia/co
mmons/thumb/6/62/Hei
rarchy_of_hazard_con
trol_diagram_01.jpg/
800px-Heirarchy_of_h
azard_control_diagra
m_01.jpg

Eliminate the risk and things become far safer.
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.[/p][/quote]No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.[/p][/quote]High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily.[/p][/quote]http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/b ike-blog/2013/jan/10 /cycling-high-visibi lity-safe-fluorescen t and https://www.cyclingw eekly.co.uk/news/lat est-news/study-finds -hi-viz-clothing-has -no-effect-on-driver -passing-distances-2 3061 Both detail why high visibility isnt a cure. I've worn it, it makes no difference to driver behaviour in my personal cicumstances If we regard health and safety as a guide to road issues we find that PPE is way down the list: http://upload.wikime dia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/thumb/6/62/Hei rarchy_of_hazard_con trol_diagram_01.jpg/ 800px-Heirarchy_of_h azard_control_diagra m_01.jpg Eliminate the risk and things become far safer. downfader
  • Score: -1

12:30pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

You can cover the pavement with so many 20 mph signs that pedestrians have to walk in the road. Will that make any difference to the creature behind the wheel of the 02 plate BMW with a noisy exhaust and 100% blacked out windows? Well I suppose if you're a loony who votes Green you will believe it will. Dream on green loony.
You can cover the pavement with so many 20 mph signs that pedestrians have to walk in the road. Will that make any difference to the creature behind the wheel of the 02 plate BMW with a noisy exhaust and 100% blacked out windows? Well I suppose if you're a loony who votes Green you will believe it will. Dream on green loony. Dai Rear
  • Score: -2

12:31pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Turtlebay says...

The only way to cut the number of HGVs in the city is to STOP building and SHUT all the shops!
The only way to cut the number of HGVs in the city is to STOP building and SHUT all the shops! Turtlebay
  • Score: -1

1:07pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
[quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue. charrlee
  • Score: 1

1:13pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

ScaredAmoeba wrote:
It is motor-vehicles who kill the lion's share of vulnerable road users. Between 2005 and 2009 motor-vehicles killed 226 pedestrians on the footway or verge (colloquially the pavement). That's one pedestrian killed by a motor-vehicle on the pavement every 8 days. For comparison, over the same interval, pedal cycles were involved in pedestrian deaths on the footway / pavement at the rate of one every three years four months.
That means for every pedestrian killed by a pavement cyclist, there were 151 pedestrians killed by a pavement driver.
It's clear who's causing the danger to pedestrians and by a massive margin.

Driving licences need to be easier to lose and lost for longer. And those who kill or maim need to be banned for life.
No more driver discounts and no more driving after twelve points.
Irrelevant, malicious interpretation of factual information.

"It is motor-vehicles WHO........" ? Motor vehicles are living creatures, are they? Been watching too many cartoons, have you?
[quote][p][bold]ScaredAmoeba[/bold] wrote: It is motor-vehicles who kill the lion's share of vulnerable road users. Between 2005 and 2009 motor-vehicles killed 226 pedestrians on the footway or verge (colloquially the pavement). That's one pedestrian killed by a motor-vehicle on the pavement every 8 days. For comparison, over the same interval, pedal cycles were involved in pedestrian deaths on the footway / pavement at the rate of one every three years four months. That means for every pedestrian killed by a pavement cyclist, there were 151 pedestrians killed by a pavement driver. It's clear who's causing the danger to pedestrians and by a massive margin. Driving licences need to be easier to lose and lost for longer. And those who kill or maim need to be banned for life. No more driver discounts and no more driving after twelve points.[/p][/quote]Irrelevant, malicious interpretation of factual information. "It is motor-vehicles WHO........" ? Motor vehicles are living creatures, are they? Been watching too many cartoons, have you? charrlee
  • Score: 1

2:02pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Torchie1 says...

charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
The 'Road Tax' Nazis probably don't understand the irony when they use terms like Hoover, Biro and Thermos Flask which have slipped in to the language with no apparent opposition. Sadly they continue on their personal crusades and end up giving everyone else something to chuckle about and almost certainly alienating people who previously were ambivalent towards bicycles.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]The 'Road Tax' Nazis probably don't understand the irony when they use terms like Hoover, Biro and Thermos Flask which have slipped in to the language with no apparent opposition. Sadly they continue on their personal crusades and end up giving everyone else something to chuckle about and almost certainly alienating people who previously were ambivalent towards bicycles. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Sun 2 Mar 14

theoriginalwasp says...

charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
You're an idiot.

As a cyclist I create 0 emissions. I pay my VED for my car to which I create 126g CO2/ton.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]You're an idiot. As a cyclist I create 0 emissions. I pay my VED for my car to which I create 126g CO2/ton. theoriginalwasp
  • Score: 1

2:23pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

theoriginalwasp wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
You're an idiot.

As a cyclist I create 0 emissions. I pay my VED for my car to which I create 126g CO2/ton.
Hello, Simmons! Wondered when you'd turn up.
[quote][p][bold]theoriginalwasp[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]You're an idiot. As a cyclist I create 0 emissions. I pay my VED for my car to which I create 126g CO2/ton.[/p][/quote]Hello, Simmons! Wondered when you'd turn up. charrlee
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

espanuel wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.
No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.
High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily.
If I remember correctly, numbers of Spanish cyclists dropped dramatically due to those laws, hence it will NOT be made law in Britain, we want to ENCOURAGE people to cycle, not discourage them, such laws make cycling sound far more dangerous than it is, should pedestrians wear hi-vis and helmets because they're 60 times more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is?
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.[/p][/quote]No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.[/p][/quote]High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily.[/p][/quote]If I remember correctly, numbers of Spanish cyclists dropped dramatically due to those laws, hence it will NOT be made law in Britain, we want to ENCOURAGE people to cycle, not discourage them, such laws make cycling sound far more dangerous than it is, should pedestrians wear hi-vis and helmets because they're 60 times more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

2:36pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
The 'Road Tax' Nazis probably don't understand the irony when they use terms like Hoover, Biro and Thermos Flask which have slipped in to the language with no apparent opposition. Sadly they continue on their personal crusades and end up giving everyone else something to chuckle about and almost certainly alienating people who previously were ambivalent towards bicycles.
I understand quite well that most of those things aren't actually called that but those names are actually company names, like Hoover who dominated the vacuum cleaner market that their name became synonimous with the machines, the balpoint pen was made synonomous with the Biro company and Thermos became synonomous with flasks, though I can actually get away with calling my flask a Thermos Flask because it actually is a flask made by Thermos.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]The 'Road Tax' Nazis probably don't understand the irony when they use terms like Hoover, Biro and Thermos Flask which have slipped in to the language with no apparent opposition. Sadly they continue on their personal crusades and end up giving everyone else something to chuckle about and almost certainly alienating people who previously were ambivalent towards bicycles.[/p][/quote]I understand quite well that most of those things aren't actually called that but those names are actually company names, like Hoover who dominated the vacuum cleaner market that their name became synonimous with the machines, the balpoint pen was made synonomous with the Biro company and Thermos became synonomous with flasks, though I can actually get away with calling my flask a Thermos Flask because it actually is a flask made by Thermos. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -4

2:51pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back. charrlee
  • Score: -3

2:55pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel;
http://www.youtube.c
om/user/CarpioMonstr
o/videos
Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.[/p][/quote]Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel; http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

3:09pm Sun 2 Mar 14

RangjanK says...

Huffter wrote:
According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.
Don't be daft. You are cherry-picking facts. It would not cut the number of journeys - it would move them to an alternative form of transport which is responsible for killing 30,000 a year (even if all accidents could be eliminated).
[quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.[/p][/quote]Don't be daft. You are cherry-picking facts. It would not cut the number of journeys - it would move them to an alternative form of transport which is responsible for killing 30,000 a year (even if all accidents could be eliminated). RangjanK
  • Score: 3

3:10pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel;
http://www.youtube.c

om/user/CarpioMonstr

o/videos
Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.
I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke.

I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here.

Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist.

Go away!!!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.[/p][/quote]Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel; http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.[/p][/quote]I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke. I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here. Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist. Go away!!! charrlee
  • Score: -1

3:12pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel;
http://www.youtube.c


om/user/CarpioMonstr


o/videos
Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.
I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke.

I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here.

Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist.

Go away!!!
I have done nothing of the sort.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.[/p][/quote]Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel; http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.[/p][/quote]I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke. I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here. Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist. Go away!!![/p][/quote]I have done nothing of the sort. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

3:25pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel;
http://www.youtube.c



om/user/CarpioMonstr



o/videos
Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.
I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke.

I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here.

Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist.

Go away!!!
I have done nothing of the sort.
You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax".

You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion.

You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day.

Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.[/p][/quote]Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel; http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.[/p][/quote]I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke. I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here. Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist. Go away!!![/p][/quote]I have done nothing of the sort.[/p][/quote]You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax". You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion. You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day. Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence......... charrlee
  • Score: 2

3:38pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel;
http://www.youtube.c




om/user/CarpioMonstr




o/videos
Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.
I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke.

I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here.

Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist.

Go away!!!
I have done nothing of the sort.
You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax".

You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion.

You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day.

Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........
The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway.
Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.[/p][/quote]Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel; http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.[/p][/quote]I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke. I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here. Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist. Go away!!![/p][/quote]I have done nothing of the sort.[/p][/quote]You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax". You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion. You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day. Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........[/p][/quote]The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway. Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -4

3:56pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel;
http://www.youtube.c





om/user/CarpioMonstr





o/videos
Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.
I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke.

I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here.

Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist.

Go away!!!
I have done nothing of the sort.
You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax".

You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion.

You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day.

Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........
The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway.
Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.
No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments.

I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.[/p][/quote]Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel; http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.[/p][/quote]I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke. I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here. Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist. Go away!!![/p][/quote]I have done nothing of the sort.[/p][/quote]You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax". You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion. You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day. Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........[/p][/quote]The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway. Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.[/p][/quote]No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments. I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that? charrlee
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Sun 2 Mar 14

BorislawGeorgiew says...

A wooden bed is better than a golden coffin
A wooden bed is better than a golden coffin BorislawGeorgiew
  • Score: -3

4:08pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel;
http://www.youtube.c






om/user/CarpioMonstr






o/videos
Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.
I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke.

I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here.

Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist.

Go away!!!
I have done nothing of the sort.
You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax".

You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion.

You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day.

Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........
The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway.
Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.
No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments.

I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that?
I've had more supportive replies on these topics and thumbs up than you have...
But anyway, none of this is directly related to the fact that an MEP has seen sense and is calling for drastic changes in how we get around by removing more cars from the road, thus decreasing congestion, decreasing journey times, decreasing pollution, decreasing the strain on the local hospitals and everyone feeling better about themselves.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.[/p][/quote]Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel; http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.[/p][/quote]I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke. I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here. Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist. Go away!!![/p][/quote]I have done nothing of the sort.[/p][/quote]You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax". You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion. You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day. Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........[/p][/quote]The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway. Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.[/p][/quote]No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments. I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that?[/p][/quote]I've had more supportive replies on these topics and thumbs up than you have... But anyway, none of this is directly related to the fact that an MEP has seen sense and is calling for drastic changes in how we get around by removing more cars from the road, thus decreasing congestion, decreasing journey times, decreasing pollution, decreasing the strain on the local hospitals and everyone feeling better about themselves. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -7

4:32pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

BorislawGeorgiew wrote:
A wooden bed is better than a golden coffin
Not here, Boris. We can rise again from the ashes of our discontent......and.
.......and......so on.
[quote][p][bold]BorislawGeorgiew[/bold] wrote: A wooden bed is better than a golden coffin[/p][/quote]Not here, Boris. We can rise again from the ashes of our discontent......and. .......and......so on. charrlee
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel;
http://www.youtube.c







om/user/CarpioMonstr







o/videos
Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.
I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke.

I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here.

Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist.

Go away!!!
I have done nothing of the sort.
You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax".

You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion.

You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day.

Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........
The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway.
Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.
No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments.

I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that?
I've had more supportive replies on these topics and thumbs up than you have...
But anyway, none of this is directly related to the fact that an MEP has seen sense and is calling for drastic changes in how we get around by removing more cars from the road, thus decreasing congestion, decreasing journey times, decreasing pollution, decreasing the strain on the local hospitals and everyone feeling better about themselves.
You are joking! Your first 4 comments on this thread have -10, -7, -20, and -16!
And the next 4 : -13, -8, -5, -9! Eight comments by you earned -88 votes!

The only people that EVER complimented you all got banned : Jayne388, Estelle, and Justanotherview!

All you have to do is say nice things and agree with a few people. Not so hard to do, is it? You can still be the "fount of all knowledge", but play nicely.

Going to sound like a teacher now, but you have the potential to be a top contributor here, but you ruin it by sounding like Downfader and Simmons.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.[/p][/quote]Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel; http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.[/p][/quote]I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke. I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here. Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist. Go away!!![/p][/quote]I have done nothing of the sort.[/p][/quote]You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax". You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion. You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day. Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........[/p][/quote]The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway. Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.[/p][/quote]No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments. I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that?[/p][/quote]I've had more supportive replies on these topics and thumbs up than you have... But anyway, none of this is directly related to the fact that an MEP has seen sense and is calling for drastic changes in how we get around by removing more cars from the road, thus decreasing congestion, decreasing journey times, decreasing pollution, decreasing the strain on the local hospitals and everyone feeling better about themselves.[/p][/quote]You are joking! Your first 4 comments on this thread have -10, -7, -20, and -16! And the next 4 : -13, -8, -5, -9! Eight comments by you earned -88 votes! The only people that EVER complimented you all got banned : Jayne388, Estelle, and Justanotherview! All you have to do is say nice things and agree with a few people. Not so hard to do, is it? You can still be the "fount of all knowledge", but play nicely. Going to sound like a teacher now, but you have the potential to be a top contributor here, but you ruin it by sounding like Downfader and Simmons. charrlee
  • Score: 4

4:53pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger, this isn't about divide and conquer. It's about you rising above the influences that are dragging you down.......Mr Minus 88!
Ginger, this isn't about divide and conquer. It's about you rising above the influences that are dragging you down.......Mr Minus 88! charrlee
  • Score: -4

5:00pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel;
http://www.youtube.c








om/user/CarpioMonstr








o/videos
Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.
I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke.

I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here.

Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist.

Go away!!!
I have done nothing of the sort.
You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax".

You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion.

You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day.

Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........
The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway.
Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.
No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments.

I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that?
I've had more supportive replies on these topics and thumbs up than you have...
But anyway, none of this is directly related to the fact that an MEP has seen sense and is calling for drastic changes in how we get around by removing more cars from the road, thus decreasing congestion, decreasing journey times, decreasing pollution, decreasing the strain on the local hospitals and everyone feeling better about themselves.
You are joking! Your first 4 comments on this thread have -10, -7, -20, and -16!
And the next 4 : -13, -8, -5, -9! Eight comments by you earned -88 votes!

The only people that EVER complimented you all got banned : Jayne388, Estelle, and Justanotherview!

All you have to do is say nice things and agree with a few people. Not so hard to do, is it? You can still be the "fount of all knowledge", but play nicely.

Going to sound like a teacher now, but you have the potential to be a top contributor here, but you ruin it by sounding like Downfader and Simmons.
Thumbs down from the anti's no doubt, the same anti's that don't like being proven wrong, like Keith "Motormouth" Peat.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.[/p][/quote]Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel; http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.[/p][/quote]I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke. I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here. Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist. Go away!!![/p][/quote]I have done nothing of the sort.[/p][/quote]You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax". You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion. You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day. Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........[/p][/quote]The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway. Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.[/p][/quote]No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments. I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that?[/p][/quote]I've had more supportive replies on these topics and thumbs up than you have... But anyway, none of this is directly related to the fact that an MEP has seen sense and is calling for drastic changes in how we get around by removing more cars from the road, thus decreasing congestion, decreasing journey times, decreasing pollution, decreasing the strain on the local hospitals and everyone feeling better about themselves.[/p][/quote]You are joking! Your first 4 comments on this thread have -10, -7, -20, and -16! And the next 4 : -13, -8, -5, -9! Eight comments by you earned -88 votes! The only people that EVER complimented you all got banned : Jayne388, Estelle, and Justanotherview! All you have to do is say nice things and agree with a few people. Not so hard to do, is it? You can still be the "fount of all knowledge", but play nicely. Going to sound like a teacher now, but you have the potential to be a top contributor here, but you ruin it by sounding like Downfader and Simmons.[/p][/quote]Thumbs down from the anti's no doubt, the same anti's that don't like being proven wrong, like Keith "Motormouth" Peat. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

5:18pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Huffter says...

RangjanK wrote:
Huffter wrote:
According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.
Don't be daft. You are cherry-picking facts. It would not cut the number of journeys - it would move them to an alternative form of transport which is responsible for killing 30,000 a year (even if all accidents could be eliminated).
Just using common sense,.. but apologies if I've got it wrong. Please give us the true facts and figures.
[quote][p][bold]RangjanK[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: According to these statistics, if cycling were banned it would cut by 3% the number of journeys undertaken but produce a 26.1% reduction in the number of collisions where someone was killed or seriously injured.[/p][/quote]Don't be daft. You are cherry-picking facts. It would not cut the number of journeys - it would move them to an alternative form of transport which is responsible for killing 30,000 a year (even if all accidents could be eliminated).[/p][/quote]Just using common sense,.. but apologies if I've got it wrong. Please give us the true facts and figures. Huffter
  • Score: -3

5:29pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel;
http://www.youtube.c









om/user/CarpioMonstr









o/videos
Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.
I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke.

I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here.

Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist.

Go away!!!
I have done nothing of the sort.
You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax".

You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion.

You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day.

Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........
The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway.
Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.
No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments.

I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that?
I've had more supportive replies on these topics and thumbs up than you have...
But anyway, none of this is directly related to the fact that an MEP has seen sense and is calling for drastic changes in how we get around by removing more cars from the road, thus decreasing congestion, decreasing journey times, decreasing pollution, decreasing the strain on the local hospitals and everyone feeling better about themselves.
You are joking! Your first 4 comments on this thread have -10, -7, -20, and -16!
And the next 4 : -13, -8, -5, -9! Eight comments by you earned -88 votes!

The only people that EVER complimented you all got banned : Jayne388, Estelle, and Justanotherview!

All you have to do is say nice things and agree with a few people. Not so hard to do, is it? You can still be the "fount of all knowledge", but play nicely.

Going to sound like a teacher now, but you have the potential to be a top contributor here, but you ruin it by sounding like Downfader and Simmons.
Thumbs down from the anti's no doubt, the same anti's that don't like being proven wrong, like Keith "Motormouth" Peat.
No. People just groan when they see your name, reams of cold data in the form of a lecture, and they just hit the minus button. Most don't even read what southy writes - just hit minus!

The administrators showed their immaturity and lack of common sense introducing a voting system on an open forum. Last year, Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff, but got -1000 from some lunatic with a votebot! And some clown started publishing email addresses! That HAD to be an Echo employee.

I think most people know you are a genuine, honest "Joe", but you are becoming predictable and repetitive. Change your approach. Tell a joke. Make some fun and some mischief. Take a break for a couple of months, and publish under a different name and style in the meantime. Then come back and everyone will welcome you and say they missed you!

We may all be real people, but this forum is not the real world, is it?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.[/p][/quote]Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel; http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.[/p][/quote]I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke. I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here. Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist. Go away!!![/p][/quote]I have done nothing of the sort.[/p][/quote]You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax". You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion. You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day. Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........[/p][/quote]The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway. Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.[/p][/quote]No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments. I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that?[/p][/quote]I've had more supportive replies on these topics and thumbs up than you have... But anyway, none of this is directly related to the fact that an MEP has seen sense and is calling for drastic changes in how we get around by removing more cars from the road, thus decreasing congestion, decreasing journey times, decreasing pollution, decreasing the strain on the local hospitals and everyone feeling better about themselves.[/p][/quote]You are joking! Your first 4 comments on this thread have -10, -7, -20, and -16! And the next 4 : -13, -8, -5, -9! Eight comments by you earned -88 votes! The only people that EVER complimented you all got banned : Jayne388, Estelle, and Justanotherview! All you have to do is say nice things and agree with a few people. Not so hard to do, is it? You can still be the "fount of all knowledge", but play nicely. Going to sound like a teacher now, but you have the potential to be a top contributor here, but you ruin it by sounding like Downfader and Simmons.[/p][/quote]Thumbs down from the anti's no doubt, the same anti's that don't like being proven wrong, like Keith "Motormouth" Peat.[/p][/quote]No. People just groan when they see your name, reams of cold data in the form of a lecture, and they just hit the minus button. Most don't even read what southy writes - just hit minus! The administrators showed their immaturity and lack of common sense introducing a voting system on an open forum. Last year, Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff, but got -1000 from some lunatic with a votebot! And some clown started publishing email addresses! That HAD to be an Echo employee. I think most people know you are a genuine, honest "Joe", but you are becoming predictable and repetitive. Change your approach. Tell a joke. Make some fun and some mischief. Take a break for a couple of months, and publish under a different name and style in the meantime. Then come back and everyone will welcome you and say they missed you! We may all be real people, but this forum is not the real world, is it? charrlee
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Cant ride Hola knock the Pedestriains down then!
Cant ride Hola knock the Pedestriains down then! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: -4

6:49pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Alea iacta est! The die is cast..............

They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony.

I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad.

I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire.

I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times.

But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.
Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel;
http://www.youtube.c










om/user/CarpioMonstr










o/videos
Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.
I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke.

I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here.

Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist.

Go away!!!
I have done nothing of the sort.
You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax".

You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion.

You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day.

Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........
The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway.
Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.
No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments.

I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that?
I've had more supportive replies on these topics and thumbs up than you have...
But anyway, none of this is directly related to the fact that an MEP has seen sense and is calling for drastic changes in how we get around by removing more cars from the road, thus decreasing congestion, decreasing journey times, decreasing pollution, decreasing the strain on the local hospitals and everyone feeling better about themselves.
You are joking! Your first 4 comments on this thread have -10, -7, -20, and -16!
And the next 4 : -13, -8, -5, -9! Eight comments by you earned -88 votes!

The only people that EVER complimented you all got banned : Jayne388, Estelle, and Justanotherview!

All you have to do is say nice things and agree with a few people. Not so hard to do, is it? You can still be the "fount of all knowledge", but play nicely.

Going to sound like a teacher now, but you have the potential to be a top contributor here, but you ruin it by sounding like Downfader and Simmons.
Thumbs down from the anti's no doubt, the same anti's that don't like being proven wrong, like Keith "Motormouth" Peat.
No. People just groan when they see your name, reams of cold data in the form of a lecture, and they just hit the minus button. Most don't even read what southy writes - just hit minus!

The administrators showed their immaturity and lack of common sense introducing a voting system on an open forum. Last year, Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff, but got -1000 from some lunatic with a votebot! And some clown started publishing email addresses! That HAD to be an Echo employee.

I think most people know you are a genuine, honest "Joe", but you are becoming predictable and repetitive. Change your approach. Tell a joke. Make some fun and some mischief. Take a break for a couple of months, and publish under a different name and style in the meantime. Then come back and everyone will welcome you and say they missed you!

We may all be real people, but this forum is not the real world, is it?
If people don't like me, that's their problem, not mine.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Alea iacta est! The die is cast.............. They will either mount a multi-pronged verbal attack, or attempt to discredit me by associating me with an idea or person that the regular readership here will find distasteful. They will provide spurious and extracontextual quotes to further compound mistrust in the hope that I will fight back desperately like a cornered animal. Which, of course, will put further doubt in people's minds. I shall be d amned if I do, d amned if I don't. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, freefinker, Stillness, and the latest incarnation of froots will turn up and pile on the agony. I have been watching this from the sidelines for several years now, under various innocuous nicknames. I really thought those pensioners were going to win through last year, but they lost their nerve and their tempers. Too bad. I've no stomach for wars, and it is very unfair on the honest folk who post here when they get caught up in the crossfire. I've had my say about cycling. They must never be demonised, and there should be greater understanding and sympathy between ALL road users in these very difficult and congested times. But please don't let the shenanigans of Downfader and Gingercyclist bring cycling into disrepute. They are probably anti-cycling terrorists working under cover!!!!!!!!!!!! I've seen so many people here destroyed by these pariahs. Some gave in, some were banned for fighting back.[/p][/quote]Suuuurrrrre, because my youtube channel; http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos Reeeeaaaalllly shows that I'm some "anti-cyclist terrorist working undercover" doesn't it.[/p][/quote]I apologise. I forgot your unfortunate tendency to take everything literally. That comment was meant as a joke. I'll not add to the humiliation you should be feeling as a result of being continually dismissed by the regular readership here. Along with the other two, you have done nothing but damage the reputation of the average, decent cyclist. Go away!!![/p][/quote]I have done nothing of the sort.[/p][/quote]You have done it with your incessant, detailed ramblings about insignificant matters such as the use of the expression "road tax". You have done it by constantly correcting people in a condescending and arrogant fashion. You have done it by just blithering and blathering, day after day. Let's count the number of people that spring to your defence.........[/p][/quote]The use of the term "road tax" does far more damage to us than most things because it gives some motorists a sense of ownership of the roads or a right over everyone else to use the roads when this simply isn't true, "road tax" is often used as an invalid argument when we get hit, people pass us too close or overtake in ridiculous places like at traffic islands, I've even heard it being used as an invalid argument for illegal parking before, yes I correct people because if I don't, they will keep getting it wrong and they'll only get corrected by someone else anyway. Let's compare the thumbs up and thumbs down people have given us.[/p][/quote]No, no, no. Let's go back over the last week, which is as long as I have been here, and select the best replies to our comments. I got "Another cracking post" from Positively4thStreet for something (you can check with him next time you see him here). Can you top that?[/p][/quote]I've had more supportive replies on these topics and thumbs up than you have... But anyway, none of this is directly related to the fact that an MEP has seen sense and is calling for drastic changes in how we get around by removing more cars from the road, thus decreasing congestion, decreasing journey times, decreasing pollution, decreasing the strain on the local hospitals and everyone feeling better about themselves.[/p][/quote]You are joking! Your first 4 comments on this thread have -10, -7, -20, and -16! And the next 4 : -13, -8, -5, -9! Eight comments by you earned -88 votes! The only people that EVER complimented you all got banned : Jayne388, Estelle, and Justanotherview! All you have to do is say nice things and agree with a few people. Not so hard to do, is it? You can still be the "fount of all knowledge", but play nicely. Going to sound like a teacher now, but you have the potential to be a top contributor here, but you ruin it by sounding like Downfader and Simmons.[/p][/quote]Thumbs down from the anti's no doubt, the same anti's that don't like being proven wrong, like Keith "Motormouth" Peat.[/p][/quote]No. People just groan when they see your name, reams of cold data in the form of a lecture, and they just hit the minus button. Most don't even read what southy writes - just hit minus! The administrators showed their immaturity and lack of common sense introducing a voting system on an open forum. Last year, Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff, but got -1000 from some lunatic with a votebot! And some clown started publishing email addresses! That HAD to be an Echo employee. I think most people know you are a genuine, honest "Joe", but you are becoming predictable and repetitive. Change your approach. Tell a joke. Make some fun and some mischief. Take a break for a couple of months, and publish under a different name and style in the meantime. Then come back and everyone will welcome you and say they missed you! We may all be real people, but this forum is not the real world, is it?[/p][/quote]If people don't like me, that's their problem, not mine. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

6:51pm Sun 2 Mar 14

espanuel says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
espanuel wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.
No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.
High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily.
If I remember correctly, numbers of Spanish cyclists dropped dramatically due to those laws, hence it will NOT be made law in Britain, we want to ENCOURAGE people to cycle, not discourage them, such laws make cycling sound far more dangerous than it is, should pedestrians wear hi-vis and helmets because they're 60 times more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is?
You are totally wrong. I think you have got your facts a bit twisted.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.[/p][/quote]No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.[/p][/quote]High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily.[/p][/quote]If I remember correctly, numbers of Spanish cyclists dropped dramatically due to those laws, hence it will NOT be made law in Britain, we want to ENCOURAGE people to cycle, not discourage them, such laws make cycling sound far more dangerous than it is, should pedestrians wear hi-vis and helmets because they're 60 times more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is?[/p][/quote]You are totally wrong. I think you have got your facts a bit twisted. espanuel
  • Score: -2

6:59pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

espanuel wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
espanuel wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.
No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.
High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily.
If I remember correctly, numbers of Spanish cyclists dropped dramatically due to those laws, hence it will NOT be made law in Britain, we want to ENCOURAGE people to cycle, not discourage them, such laws make cycling sound far more dangerous than it is, should pedestrians wear hi-vis and helmets because they're 60 times more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is?
You are totally wrong. I think you have got your facts a bit twisted.
Nope, I've seen studies conducted in spain on the topic and numbers of cyclists took quite a hit with those laws, the same with cycling in the US, in New Zealand, in Australia and every other country that has those laws, have seen a DECREASE in numbers of people cycling and such laws DO make cycling out to be a lot more dangerous than it actually is, like I said, should we make pedestrians wear hi-vis and helmets because they're 60 times more likely per mile travelled, to be killed/seriously injured than a cyclist? Also, what good is hi-vis when the people most likely to hit you are those that don't look, don't look properly or look but don't care? Also, what part of the body is going to take the most impact in a colission with a car? It won't be the head, not unless it was a 4x4, van or other large vehicle and even if it was the head, cycle helmets won't protect your head at speeds higher than 15 to 20mph AND they can cause rotational injuries.
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.[/p][/quote]No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.[/p][/quote]High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily.[/p][/quote]If I remember correctly, numbers of Spanish cyclists dropped dramatically due to those laws, hence it will NOT be made law in Britain, we want to ENCOURAGE people to cycle, not discourage them, such laws make cycling sound far more dangerous than it is, should pedestrians wear hi-vis and helmets because they're 60 times more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is?[/p][/quote]You are totally wrong. I think you have got your facts a bit twisted.[/p][/quote]Nope, I've seen studies conducted in spain on the topic and numbers of cyclists took quite a hit with those laws, the same with cycling in the US, in New Zealand, in Australia and every other country that has those laws, have seen a DECREASE in numbers of people cycling and such laws DO make cycling out to be a lot more dangerous than it actually is, like I said, should we make pedestrians wear hi-vis and helmets because they're 60 times more likely per mile travelled, to be killed/seriously injured than a cyclist? Also, what good is hi-vis when the people most likely to hit you are those that don't look, don't look properly or look but don't care? Also, what part of the body is going to take the most impact in a colission with a car? It won't be the head, not unless it was a 4x4, van or other large vehicle and even if it was the head, cycle helmets won't protect your head at speeds higher than 15 to 20mph AND they can cause rotational injuries. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

7:56pm Sun 2 Mar 14

freefinker says...

.. oh dear, oh dear.
Do I detect the return of BtK?
Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".
.. oh dear, oh dear. Do I detect the return of BtK? Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff". freefinker
  • Score: 4

9:21pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

freefinker wrote:
.. oh dear, oh dear.
Do I detect the return of BtK?
Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".
Not quite.
But when I watched the whole thing unfold last year, I was under the impression that there was some concerted effort to make certain individuals lives difficult on this forum. I have been posting on this forum, happily and successfully I might add, for over a week now. Mention your name in connection with Downfader and Graham Simmons and bingo there you are - sort of out of nowhere.
I subscribe to the Times and the Telegraph sites, which, as you probably know, are premoderated. No problems there with bullying or intimidation simply because you hold controversial views.
The odd thing that struck me was that, no matter how much logical common sense was put before you, you weren't willing to accept that half a dozen people could post from the same computer using different names, without there being anything sinister about it.
Obviously the Billy The Kid character was aggressive and hostile with his own agenda, but Jayne388, Estelle, and Justanotherview were pretty much on the level.
Would you care to explain why you and certain others were suspicious and hostile towards people who had not provoked you in any way?
I don't wish to start an argument with you. Just looking for some answers.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. oh dear, oh dear. Do I detect the return of BtK? Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".[/p][/quote]Not quite. But when I watched the whole thing unfold last year, I was under the impression that there was some concerted effort to make certain individuals lives difficult on this forum. I have been posting on this forum, happily and successfully I might add, for over a week now. Mention your name in connection with Downfader and Graham Simmons and bingo there you are - sort of out of nowhere. I subscribe to the Times and the Telegraph sites, which, as you probably know, are premoderated. No problems there with bullying or intimidation simply because you hold controversial views. The odd thing that struck me was that, no matter how much logical common sense was put before you, you weren't willing to accept that half a dozen people could post from the same computer using different names, without there being anything sinister about it. Obviously the Billy The Kid character was aggressive and hostile with his own agenda, but Jayne388, Estelle, and Justanotherview were pretty much on the level. Would you care to explain why you and certain others were suspicious and hostile towards people who had not provoked you in any way? I don't wish to start an argument with you. Just looking for some answers. charrlee
  • Score: -4

10:07pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Brock_and_Roll says...

Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck.

Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?
Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck. Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement? Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 1

10:56pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck.

Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?
Ginger cyclist was quite open last year in telling us that he is Asperger's Syndrome. This will, as you might know, have an impact on his thought processes. He may have no real concept of the idea of hypocricy, which is largely intuitive, but he will know the highway code back to front, and the Road Traffic Acts, and will experience a great sense of injustice when he sees others infringe those regulations. And he will quite correctly point out to you that a raving lunatic will lack the skill and concentration to negotiate two tight lines of slow moving traffic at high speed.
His bicycle is likely to be in first class condition, his car the same, and at a guess I'd say he probably passed his driving test first time with flying colours.
People have explained to him that going out as a vigilante to film motorists commiting offences may be praiseworthy if he was a policeman, but not socially "acceptable" as a member of the public.
He's the sort of person who would be a chump at a party, but win the Mastermind championship 3 times in a row.
He is often creative with facts if it suits his purpose, but only to win the argument. I don't think I have ever detected the tiniest microbe of malice in anything he has ever said, which is more than you can say for many of the contributors to this forum. But his lengthy analyses can sometimes induce yawning.
[quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck. Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?[/p][/quote]Ginger cyclist was quite open last year in telling us that he is Asperger's Syndrome. This will, as you might know, have an impact on his thought processes. He may have no real concept of the idea of hypocricy, which is largely intuitive, but he will know the highway code back to front, and the Road Traffic Acts, and will experience a great sense of injustice when he sees others infringe those regulations. And he will quite correctly point out to you that a raving lunatic will lack the skill and concentration to negotiate two tight lines of slow moving traffic at high speed. His bicycle is likely to be in first class condition, his car the same, and at a guess I'd say he probably passed his driving test first time with flying colours. People have explained to him that going out as a vigilante to film motorists commiting offences may be praiseworthy if he was a policeman, but not socially "acceptable" as a member of the public. He's the sort of person who would be a chump at a party, but win the Mastermind championship 3 times in a row. He is often creative with facts if it suits his purpose, but only to win the argument. I don't think I have ever detected the tiniest microbe of malice in anything he has ever said, which is more than you can say for many of the contributors to this forum. But his lengthy analyses can sometimes induce yawning. charrlee
  • Score: -3

11:13pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck.

Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?
I wouldn't exactly call roughly 10mph or less "high speed" but that video was posted to show that I don't make my own mistakes at times, NOT to incriminate myself as a hypocrite, besides, I was LEGALLY filtering, as was the motorcyclist behind me.
[quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck. Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?[/p][/quote]I wouldn't exactly call roughly 10mph or less "high speed" but that video was posted to show that I don't make my own mistakes at times, NOT to incriminate myself as a hypocrite, besides, I was LEGALLY filtering, as was the motorcyclist behind me. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:18pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

freefinker wrote:
.. oh dear, oh dear.
Do I detect the return of BtK?
Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".
I liked Jayne's comments. She had genuine knowledge and understanding of any topic she chose to comment on in depth, and showed a great deal of insight and imagination. Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations.
Neither was she, nor am I, Billy The Kid. He has been flourishing on the Telegraph comments section for several years now, but under a different name. Not once has he encountered the abuse that he got here from you, Andy Saints, Downfader, Stillness, etc. Mind you, I realise he did antagonise you - I'll grant you that.

Now. Bicycles. Cyclists and motorists need to bury the hatchet in the ground, not in each other's heads! They need to exchange views graciously, and make some peaceful progress.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. oh dear, oh dear. Do I detect the return of BtK? Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".[/p][/quote]I liked Jayne's comments. She had genuine knowledge and understanding of any topic she chose to comment on in depth, and showed a great deal of insight and imagination. Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations. Neither was she, nor am I, Billy The Kid. He has been flourishing on the Telegraph comments section for several years now, but under a different name. Not once has he encountered the abuse that he got here from you, Andy Saints, Downfader, Stillness, etc. Mind you, I realise he did antagonise you - I'll grant you that. Now. Bicycles. Cyclists and motorists need to bury the hatchet in the ground, not in each other's heads! They need to exchange views graciously, and make some peaceful progress. charrlee
  • Score: -3

11:19pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck.

Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?
Ginger cyclist was quite open last year in telling us that he is Asperger's Syndrome. This will, as you might know, have an impact on his thought processes. He may have no real concept of the idea of hypocricy, which is largely intuitive, but he will know the highway code back to front, and the Road Traffic Acts, and will experience a great sense of injustice when he sees others infringe those regulations. And he will quite correctly point out to you that a raving lunatic will lack the skill and concentration to negotiate two tight lines of slow moving traffic at high speed.
His bicycle is likely to be in first class condition, his car the same, and at a guess I'd say he probably passed his driving test first time with flying colours.
People have explained to him that going out as a vigilante to film motorists commiting offences may be praiseworthy if he was a policeman, but not socially "acceptable" as a member of the public.
He's the sort of person who would be a chump at a party, but win the Mastermind championship 3 times in a row.
He is often creative with facts if it suits his purpose, but only to win the argument. I don't think I have ever detected the tiniest microbe of malice in anything he has ever said, which is more than you can say for many of the contributors to this forum. But his lengthy analyses can sometimes induce yawning.
Not sure if I should be worried or flattered but you are quite right that my bike is kept in very good condition, constantly tweaking it so it runs well, as my car would be if I was able to afford running one and did pass my driving test first time but not quite with flying colours, mostly down to being hesitant at times when going onto roundabouts but a vigilante gives violent punishment to people they beleive have done wrong, not record the ones they witness and post it on the web.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck. Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?[/p][/quote]Ginger cyclist was quite open last year in telling us that he is Asperger's Syndrome. This will, as you might know, have an impact on his thought processes. He may have no real concept of the idea of hypocricy, which is largely intuitive, but he will know the highway code back to front, and the Road Traffic Acts, and will experience a great sense of injustice when he sees others infringe those regulations. And he will quite correctly point out to you that a raving lunatic will lack the skill and concentration to negotiate two tight lines of slow moving traffic at high speed. His bicycle is likely to be in first class condition, his car the same, and at a guess I'd say he probably passed his driving test first time with flying colours. People have explained to him that going out as a vigilante to film motorists commiting offences may be praiseworthy if he was a policeman, but not socially "acceptable" as a member of the public. He's the sort of person who would be a chump at a party, but win the Mastermind championship 3 times in a row. He is often creative with facts if it suits his purpose, but only to win the argument. I don't think I have ever detected the tiniest microbe of malice in anything he has ever said, which is more than you can say for many of the contributors to this forum. But his lengthy analyses can sometimes induce yawning.[/p][/quote]Not sure if I should be worried or flattered but you are quite right that my bike is kept in very good condition, constantly tweaking it so it runs well, as my car would be if I was able to afford running one and did pass my driving test first time but not quite with flying colours, mostly down to being hesitant at times when going onto roundabouts but a vigilante gives violent punishment to people they beleive have done wrong, not record the ones they witness and post it on the web. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:20pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck.

Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?
I wouldn't exactly call roughly 10mph or less "high speed" but that video was posted to show that I don't make my own mistakes at times, NOT to incriminate myself as a hypocrite, besides, I was LEGALLY filtering, as was the motorcyclist behind me.
That wasn't meant to say "don't make my own mistakes", it was meant to say that i do.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck. Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?[/p][/quote]I wouldn't exactly call roughly 10mph or less "high speed" but that video was posted to show that I don't make my own mistakes at times, NOT to incriminate myself as a hypocrite, besides, I was LEGALLY filtering, as was the motorcyclist behind me.[/p][/quote]That wasn't meant to say "don't make my own mistakes", it was meant to say that i do. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

11:21pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck.

Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?
I wouldn't exactly call roughly 10mph or less "high speed" but that video was posted to show that I don't make my own mistakes at times, NOT to incriminate myself as a hypocrite, besides, I was LEGALLY filtering, as was the motorcyclist behind me.
Gingercyclist 1 - 0 BrockandRoll
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck. Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?[/p][/quote]I wouldn't exactly call roughly 10mph or less "high speed" but that video was posted to show that I don't make my own mistakes at times, NOT to incriminate myself as a hypocrite, besides, I was LEGALLY filtering, as was the motorcyclist behind me.[/p][/quote]Gingercyclist 1 - 0 BrockandRoll charrlee
  • Score: -1

11:36pm Sun 2 Mar 14

freefinker says...

charrlee wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. oh dear, oh dear.
Do I detect the return of BtK?
Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".
I liked Jayne's comments. She had genuine knowledge and understanding of any topic she chose to comment on in depth, and showed a great deal of insight and imagination. Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations.
Neither was she, nor am I, Billy The Kid. He has been flourishing on the Telegraph comments section for several years now, but under a different name. Not once has he encountered the abuse that he got here from you, Andy Saints, Downfader, Stillness, etc. Mind you, I realise he did antagonise you - I'll grant you that.

Now. Bicycles. Cyclists and motorists need to bury the hatchet in the ground, not in each other's heads! They need to exchange views graciously, and make some peaceful progress.
Pardon me, but first we have you saying "not quite" - big hint there as to who you are, don't you think?

Then you say- "Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations."

Well, perhaps you could point us in the direction of my 'malicious insinuations'? I made it a point of deliberately avoiding interaction with BtK and his/her subsequent reincarnations - apart from a few 'ZZZZ, ZZZZ's' and defending myself when similar accusations to yours were made against me. The patten is being repeated; your style personalising your attacks on other and your deep knowledge of past events relating to BtK is what I recognised from all your contributions above, and that's why I made my initial comment this evening.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. oh dear, oh dear. Do I detect the return of BtK? Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".[/p][/quote]I liked Jayne's comments. She had genuine knowledge and understanding of any topic she chose to comment on in depth, and showed a great deal of insight and imagination. Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations. Neither was she, nor am I, Billy The Kid. He has been flourishing on the Telegraph comments section for several years now, but under a different name. Not once has he encountered the abuse that he got here from you, Andy Saints, Downfader, Stillness, etc. Mind you, I realise he did antagonise you - I'll grant you that. Now. Bicycles. Cyclists and motorists need to bury the hatchet in the ground, not in each other's heads! They need to exchange views graciously, and make some peaceful progress.[/p][/quote]Pardon me, but first we have you saying "not quite" - big hint there as to who you are, don't you think? Then you say- "Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations." Well, perhaps you could point us in the direction of my 'malicious insinuations'? I made it a point of deliberately avoiding interaction with BtK and his/her subsequent reincarnations - apart from a few 'ZZZZ, ZZZZ's' and defending myself when similar accusations to yours were made against me. The patten is being repeated; your style personalising your attacks on other and your deep knowledge of past events relating to BtK is what I recognised from all your contributions above, and that's why I made my initial comment this evening. freefinker
  • Score: 1

11:42pm Sun 2 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck.

Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?
Ginger cyclist was quite open last year in telling us that he is Asperger's Syndrome. This will, as you might know, have an impact on his thought processes. He may have no real concept of the idea of hypocricy, which is largely intuitive, but he will know the highway code back to front, and the Road Traffic Acts, and will experience a great sense of injustice when he sees others infringe those regulations. And he will quite correctly point out to you that a raving lunatic will lack the skill and concentration to negotiate two tight lines of slow moving traffic at high speed.
His bicycle is likely to be in first class condition, his car the same, and at a guess I'd say he probably passed his driving test first time with flying colours.
People have explained to him that going out as a vigilante to film motorists commiting offences may be praiseworthy if he was a policeman, but not socially "acceptable" as a member of the public.
He's the sort of person who would be a chump at a party, but win the Mastermind championship 3 times in a row.
He is often creative with facts if it suits his purpose, but only to win the argument. I don't think I have ever detected the tiniest microbe of malice in anything he has ever said, which is more than you can say for many of the contributors to this forum. But his lengthy analyses can sometimes induce yawning.
Not sure if I should be worried or flattered but you are quite right that my bike is kept in very good condition, constantly tweaking it so it runs well, as my car would be if I was able to afford running one and did pass my driving test first time but not quite with flying colours, mostly down to being hesitant at times when going onto roundabouts but a vigilante gives violent punishment to people they beleive have done wrong, not record the ones they witness and post it on the web.
Doesn't filming wrongdoers feel a bit like telling on someone? you know it upsets a lot of the commenters here, so I just wondered if you could say why posting the clips on You Tube was fair.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck. Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?[/p][/quote]Ginger cyclist was quite open last year in telling us that he is Asperger's Syndrome. This will, as you might know, have an impact on his thought processes. He may have no real concept of the idea of hypocricy, which is largely intuitive, but he will know the highway code back to front, and the Road Traffic Acts, and will experience a great sense of injustice when he sees others infringe those regulations. And he will quite correctly point out to you that a raving lunatic will lack the skill and concentration to negotiate two tight lines of slow moving traffic at high speed. His bicycle is likely to be in first class condition, his car the same, and at a guess I'd say he probably passed his driving test first time with flying colours. People have explained to him that going out as a vigilante to film motorists commiting offences may be praiseworthy if he was a policeman, but not socially "acceptable" as a member of the public. He's the sort of person who would be a chump at a party, but win the Mastermind championship 3 times in a row. He is often creative with facts if it suits his purpose, but only to win the argument. I don't think I have ever detected the tiniest microbe of malice in anything he has ever said, which is more than you can say for many of the contributors to this forum. But his lengthy analyses can sometimes induce yawning.[/p][/quote]Not sure if I should be worried or flattered but you are quite right that my bike is kept in very good condition, constantly tweaking it so it runs well, as my car would be if I was able to afford running one and did pass my driving test first time but not quite with flying colours, mostly down to being hesitant at times when going onto roundabouts but a vigilante gives violent punishment to people they beleive have done wrong, not record the ones they witness and post it on the web.[/p][/quote]Doesn't filming wrongdoers feel a bit like telling on someone? you know it upsets a lot of the commenters here, so I just wondered if you could say why posting the clips on You Tube was fair. charrlee
  • Score: 3

12:06am Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

freefinker wrote:
charrlee wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. oh dear, oh dear.
Do I detect the return of BtK?
Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".
I liked Jayne's comments. She had genuine knowledge and understanding of any topic she chose to comment on in depth, and showed a great deal of insight and imagination. Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations.
Neither was she, nor am I, Billy The Kid. He has been flourishing on the Telegraph comments section for several years now, but under a different name. Not once has he encountered the abuse that he got here from you, Andy Saints, Downfader, Stillness, etc. Mind you, I realise he did antagonise you - I'll grant you that.

Now. Bicycles. Cyclists and motorists need to bury the hatchet in the ground, not in each other's heads! They need to exchange views graciously, and make some peaceful progress.
Pardon me, but first we have you saying "not quite" - big hint there as to who you are, don't you think?

Then you say- "Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations."

Well, perhaps you could point us in the direction of my 'malicious insinuations'? I made it a point of deliberately avoiding interaction with BtK and his/her subsequent reincarnations - apart from a few 'ZZZZ, ZZZZ's' and defending myself when similar accusations to yours were made against me. The patten is being repeated; your style personalising your attacks on other and your deep knowledge of past events relating to BtK is what I recognised from all your contributions above, and that's why I made my initial comment this evening.
My own view is that it does not matter WHO posts here, as readers are more interested in WHAT is being said. Instead of discussing points made by Jayne, you attacked her with derision by saying she was Billy The Kid. You accused her of malicious deception without a shred of incontrovertible evidence. And now you are doing the same with me.
You, Downfader and co made it impossible for her, Estelle, and Justanotherview to comment here because you sowed the seeds of doubt and suspicion in the minds of others. Now they may well have said things that were deliberately intended to antagonise, but I have not.
So do you intend to destroy my future here with accusations and insinuations, or will you accept that I happened to admire their courage, albeit rather foolhardy, in trying to fight off the abuse and attacks, a job that should have been done for them by the site administrators?

What is my connection with them? Something like the "fifth Beatle". Would it surprise you to know that they have been posting here regularly ever since the debacle, and with the benefit of hindsight, without any problems?

I don't share their views. I am my own person, and would appreciate being taken on face value, not maligned by some wannabe Sherlock. That OK with you?
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. oh dear, oh dear. Do I detect the return of BtK? Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".[/p][/quote]I liked Jayne's comments. She had genuine knowledge and understanding of any topic she chose to comment on in depth, and showed a great deal of insight and imagination. Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations. Neither was she, nor am I, Billy The Kid. He has been flourishing on the Telegraph comments section for several years now, but under a different name. Not once has he encountered the abuse that he got here from you, Andy Saints, Downfader, Stillness, etc. Mind you, I realise he did antagonise you - I'll grant you that. Now. Bicycles. Cyclists and motorists need to bury the hatchet in the ground, not in each other's heads! They need to exchange views graciously, and make some peaceful progress.[/p][/quote]Pardon me, but first we have you saying "not quite" - big hint there as to who you are, don't you think? Then you say- "Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations." Well, perhaps you could point us in the direction of my 'malicious insinuations'? I made it a point of deliberately avoiding interaction with BtK and his/her subsequent reincarnations - apart from a few 'ZZZZ, ZZZZ's' and defending myself when similar accusations to yours were made against me. The patten is being repeated; your style personalising your attacks on other and your deep knowledge of past events relating to BtK is what I recognised from all your contributions above, and that's why I made my initial comment this evening.[/p][/quote]My own view is that it does not matter WHO posts here, as readers are more interested in WHAT is being said. Instead of discussing points made by Jayne, you attacked her with derision by saying she was Billy The Kid. You accused her of malicious deception without a shred of incontrovertible evidence. And now you are doing the same with me. You, Downfader and co made it impossible for her, Estelle, and Justanotherview to comment here because you sowed the seeds of doubt and suspicion in the minds of others. Now they may well have said things that were deliberately intended to antagonise, but I have not. So do you intend to destroy my future here with accusations and insinuations, or will you accept that I happened to admire their courage, albeit rather foolhardy, in trying to fight off the abuse and attacks, a job that should have been done for them by the site administrators? What is my connection with them? Something like the "fifth Beatle". Would it surprise you to know that they have been posting here regularly ever since the debacle, and with the benefit of hindsight, without any problems? I don't share their views. I am my own person, and would appreciate being taken on face value, not maligned by some wannabe Sherlock. That OK with you? charrlee
  • Score: -2

12:22am Mon 3 Mar 14

freefinker says...

charrlee wrote:
freefinker wrote:
charrlee wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. oh dear, oh dear.
Do I detect the return of BtK?
Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".
I liked Jayne's comments. She had genuine knowledge and understanding of any topic she chose to comment on in depth, and showed a great deal of insight and imagination. Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations.
Neither was she, nor am I, Billy The Kid. He has been flourishing on the Telegraph comments section for several years now, but under a different name. Not once has he encountered the abuse that he got here from you, Andy Saints, Downfader, Stillness, etc. Mind you, I realise he did antagonise you - I'll grant you that.

Now. Bicycles. Cyclists and motorists need to bury the hatchet in the ground, not in each other's heads! They need to exchange views graciously, and make some peaceful progress.
Pardon me, but first we have you saying "not quite" - big hint there as to who you are, don't you think?

Then you say- "Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations."

Well, perhaps you could point us in the direction of my 'malicious insinuations'? I made it a point of deliberately avoiding interaction with BtK and his/her subsequent reincarnations - apart from a few 'ZZZZ, ZZZZ's' and defending myself when similar accusations to yours were made against me. The patten is being repeated; your style personalising your attacks on other and your deep knowledge of past events relating to BtK is what I recognised from all your contributions above, and that's why I made my initial comment this evening.
My own view is that it does not matter WHO posts here, as readers are more interested in WHAT is being said. Instead of discussing points made by Jayne, you attacked her with derision by saying she was Billy The Kid. You accused her of malicious deception without a shred of incontrovertible evidence. And now you are doing the same with me.
You, Downfader and co made it impossible for her, Estelle, and Justanotherview to comment here because you sowed the seeds of doubt and suspicion in the minds of others. Now they may well have said things that were deliberately intended to antagonise, but I have not.
So do you intend to destroy my future here with accusations and insinuations, or will you accept that I happened to admire their courage, albeit rather foolhardy, in trying to fight off the abuse and attacks, a job that should have been done for them by the site administrators?

What is my connection with them? Something like the "fifth Beatle". Would it surprise you to know that they have been posting here regularly ever since the debacle, and with the benefit of hindsight, without any problems?

I don't share their views. I am my own person, and would appreciate being taken on face value, not maligned by some wannabe Sherlock. That OK with you?
.. well, it would be OK but for the fact you have already started insulting me in a style reminiscent of BtK et al. And it's not just me, is it?

The patten is repeated, yet again. That's all I was pointing out.

Have I insulted you? No
Have you insulted me? Yes.
And you want 'site administrators' to protect you from me?

'fifth Beatle'? - yea, sure; pull the other one.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. oh dear, oh dear. Do I detect the return of BtK? Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".[/p][/quote]I liked Jayne's comments. She had genuine knowledge and understanding of any topic she chose to comment on in depth, and showed a great deal of insight and imagination. Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations. Neither was she, nor am I, Billy The Kid. He has been flourishing on the Telegraph comments section for several years now, but under a different name. Not once has he encountered the abuse that he got here from you, Andy Saints, Downfader, Stillness, etc. Mind you, I realise he did antagonise you - I'll grant you that. Now. Bicycles. Cyclists and motorists need to bury the hatchet in the ground, not in each other's heads! They need to exchange views graciously, and make some peaceful progress.[/p][/quote]Pardon me, but first we have you saying "not quite" - big hint there as to who you are, don't you think? Then you say- "Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations." Well, perhaps you could point us in the direction of my 'malicious insinuations'? I made it a point of deliberately avoiding interaction with BtK and his/her subsequent reincarnations - apart from a few 'ZZZZ, ZZZZ's' and defending myself when similar accusations to yours were made against me. The patten is being repeated; your style personalising your attacks on other and your deep knowledge of past events relating to BtK is what I recognised from all your contributions above, and that's why I made my initial comment this evening.[/p][/quote]My own view is that it does not matter WHO posts here, as readers are more interested in WHAT is being said. Instead of discussing points made by Jayne, you attacked her with derision by saying she was Billy The Kid. You accused her of malicious deception without a shred of incontrovertible evidence. And now you are doing the same with me. You, Downfader and co made it impossible for her, Estelle, and Justanotherview to comment here because you sowed the seeds of doubt and suspicion in the minds of others. Now they may well have said things that were deliberately intended to antagonise, but I have not. So do you intend to destroy my future here with accusations and insinuations, or will you accept that I happened to admire their courage, albeit rather foolhardy, in trying to fight off the abuse and attacks, a job that should have been done for them by the site administrators? What is my connection with them? Something like the "fifth Beatle". Would it surprise you to know that they have been posting here regularly ever since the debacle, and with the benefit of hindsight, without any problems? I don't share their views. I am my own person, and would appreciate being taken on face value, not maligned by some wannabe Sherlock. That OK with you?[/p][/quote].. well, it would be OK but for the fact you have already started insulting me in a style reminiscent of BtK et al. And it's not just me, is it? The patten is repeated, yet again. That's all I was pointing out. Have I insulted you? No Have you insulted me? Yes. And you want 'site administrators' to protect you from me? 'fifth Beatle'? - yea, sure; pull the other one. freefinker
  • Score: 3

12:27am Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck.

Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?
Ginger cyclist was quite open last year in telling us that he is Asperger's Syndrome. This will, as you might know, have an impact on his thought processes. He may have no real concept of the idea of hypocricy, which is largely intuitive, but he will know the highway code back to front, and the Road Traffic Acts, and will experience a great sense of injustice when he sees others infringe those regulations. And he will quite correctly point out to you that a raving lunatic will lack the skill and concentration to negotiate two tight lines of slow moving traffic at high speed.
His bicycle is likely to be in first class condition, his car the same, and at a guess I'd say he probably passed his driving test first time with flying colours.
People have explained to him that going out as a vigilante to film motorists commiting offences may be praiseworthy if he was a policeman, but not socially "acceptable" as a member of the public.
He's the sort of person who would be a chump at a party, but win the Mastermind championship 3 times in a row.
He is often creative with facts if it suits his purpose, but only to win the argument. I don't think I have ever detected the tiniest microbe of malice in anything he has ever said, which is more than you can say for many of the contributors to this forum. But his lengthy analyses can sometimes induce yawning.
Not sure if I should be worried or flattered but you are quite right that my bike is kept in very good condition, constantly tweaking it so it runs well, as my car would be if I was able to afford running one and did pass my driving test first time but not quite with flying colours, mostly down to being hesitant at times when going onto roundabouts but a vigilante gives violent punishment to people they beleive have done wrong, not record the ones they witness and post it on the web.
Doesn't filming wrongdoers feel a bit like telling on someone? you know it upsets a lot of the commenters here, so I just wondered if you could say why posting the clips on You Tube was fair.
If they're not doing anything wrong then they have nothing to worry about, besides, I'm not recording them specifically, I record my rides and if anything happens or if I spot something, I upload it, plus, I can then se the footage as a "silent witness" if I'm involved in an incident or if i witness one.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Watching Ginger Cyclist's videos his hypocrisy is pretty evident. He is of course happy to (quite rightly) point out coppers parked on yellows or his right not to have to cycle in the gutter....but then posts a video of him cycling at high speed like a raving lunatic down the middle of 2 tight lanes of slow moving traffic before very nearly hitting the back of a small truck. Is he an ex-London courier in semi-retirement?[/p][/quote]Ginger cyclist was quite open last year in telling us that he is Asperger's Syndrome. This will, as you might know, have an impact on his thought processes. He may have no real concept of the idea of hypocricy, which is largely intuitive, but he will know the highway code back to front, and the Road Traffic Acts, and will experience a great sense of injustice when he sees others infringe those regulations. And he will quite correctly point out to you that a raving lunatic will lack the skill and concentration to negotiate two tight lines of slow moving traffic at high speed. His bicycle is likely to be in first class condition, his car the same, and at a guess I'd say he probably passed his driving test first time with flying colours. People have explained to him that going out as a vigilante to film motorists commiting offences may be praiseworthy if he was a policeman, but not socially "acceptable" as a member of the public. He's the sort of person who would be a chump at a party, but win the Mastermind championship 3 times in a row. He is often creative with facts if it suits his purpose, but only to win the argument. I don't think I have ever detected the tiniest microbe of malice in anything he has ever said, which is more than you can say for many of the contributors to this forum. But his lengthy analyses can sometimes induce yawning.[/p][/quote]Not sure if I should be worried or flattered but you are quite right that my bike is kept in very good condition, constantly tweaking it so it runs well, as my car would be if I was able to afford running one and did pass my driving test first time but not quite with flying colours, mostly down to being hesitant at times when going onto roundabouts but a vigilante gives violent punishment to people they beleive have done wrong, not record the ones they witness and post it on the web.[/p][/quote]Doesn't filming wrongdoers feel a bit like telling on someone? you know it upsets a lot of the commenters here, so I just wondered if you could say why posting the clips on You Tube was fair.[/p][/quote]If they're not doing anything wrong then they have nothing to worry about, besides, I'm not recording them specifically, I record my rides and if anything happens or if I spot something, I upload it, plus, I can then se the footage as a "silent witness" if I'm involved in an incident or if i witness one. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

12:44am Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

freefinker wrote:
charrlee wrote:
freefinker wrote:
charrlee wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. oh dear, oh dear.
Do I detect the return of BtK?
Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".
I liked Jayne's comments. She had genuine knowledge and understanding of any topic she chose to comment on in depth, and showed a great deal of insight and imagination. Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations.
Neither was she, nor am I, Billy The Kid. He has been flourishing on the Telegraph comments section for several years now, but under a different name. Not once has he encountered the abuse that he got here from you, Andy Saints, Downfader, Stillness, etc. Mind you, I realise he did antagonise you - I'll grant you that.

Now. Bicycles. Cyclists and motorists need to bury the hatchet in the ground, not in each other's heads! They need to exchange views graciously, and make some peaceful progress.
Pardon me, but first we have you saying "not quite" - big hint there as to who you are, don't you think?

Then you say- "Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations."

Well, perhaps you could point us in the direction of my 'malicious insinuations'? I made it a point of deliberately avoiding interaction with BtK and his/her subsequent reincarnations - apart from a few 'ZZZZ, ZZZZ's' and defending myself when similar accusations to yours were made against me. The patten is being repeated; your style personalising your attacks on other and your deep knowledge of past events relating to BtK is what I recognised from all your contributions above, and that's why I made my initial comment this evening.
My own view is that it does not matter WHO posts here, as readers are more interested in WHAT is being said. Instead of discussing points made by Jayne, you attacked her with derision by saying she was Billy The Kid. You accused her of malicious deception without a shred of incontrovertible evidence. And now you are doing the same with me.
You, Downfader and co made it impossible for her, Estelle, and Justanotherview to comment here because you sowed the seeds of doubt and suspicion in the minds of others. Now they may well have said things that were deliberately intended to antagonise, but I have not.
So do you intend to destroy my future here with accusations and insinuations, or will you accept that I happened to admire their courage, albeit rather foolhardy, in trying to fight off the abuse and attacks, a job that should have been done for them by the site administrators?

What is my connection with them? Something like the "fifth Beatle". Would it surprise you to know that they have been posting here regularly ever since the debacle, and with the benefit of hindsight, without any problems?

I don't share their views. I am my own person, and would appreciate being taken on face value, not maligned by some wannabe Sherlock. That OK with you?
.. well, it would be OK but for the fact you have already started insulting me in a style reminiscent of BtK et al. And it's not just me, is it?

The patten is repeated, yet again. That's all I was pointing out.

Have I insulted you? No
Have you insulted me? Yes.
And you want 'site administrators' to protect you from me?

'fifth Beatle'? - yea, sure; pull the other one.
Look at you twisting this all up in the hope that I'll lose my temper!

You insulted me first by suggesting that I was creating a deception, namely being Billy The Kid under a different name.

Not just you? Yes it is. Quote anyone else who has made a similar accusation as you on this thread.

What pattern? Just trying your luck? Your intention is to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of other readers.

The fifth Beatle was a reference to someone who did not actually take part in stage performances.

Try to think out of the box a bit more. Live and let live. You are being a bit trivial don't you think, seeing demons where there ain't any, perhaps?

I forgive you for being suspicious. Let's see if we can move on, can we?
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. oh dear, oh dear. Do I detect the return of BtK? Has all the usual ingredients - including statements such as "Jayne was saying some really profound, compelling stuff".[/p][/quote]I liked Jayne's comments. She had genuine knowledge and understanding of any topic she chose to comment on in depth, and showed a great deal of insight and imagination. Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations. Neither was she, nor am I, Billy The Kid. He has been flourishing on the Telegraph comments section for several years now, but under a different name. Not once has he encountered the abuse that he got here from you, Andy Saints, Downfader, Stillness, etc. Mind you, I realise he did antagonise you - I'll grant you that. Now. Bicycles. Cyclists and motorists need to bury the hatchet in the ground, not in each other's heads! They need to exchange views graciously, and make some peaceful progress.[/p][/quote]Pardon me, but first we have you saying "not quite" - big hint there as to who you are, don't you think? Then you say- "Which probably induced a feeling of intellectual jealousy in you, freefinker, as you found it necessary to attempt to undermine her arguments - not with intelligent counter opinions - but with malicious insinuations." Well, perhaps you could point us in the direction of my 'malicious insinuations'? I made it a point of deliberately avoiding interaction with BtK and his/her subsequent reincarnations - apart from a few 'ZZZZ, ZZZZ's' and defending myself when similar accusations to yours were made against me. The patten is being repeated; your style personalising your attacks on other and your deep knowledge of past events relating to BtK is what I recognised from all your contributions above, and that's why I made my initial comment this evening.[/p][/quote]My own view is that it does not matter WHO posts here, as readers are more interested in WHAT is being said. Instead of discussing points made by Jayne, you attacked her with derision by saying she was Billy The Kid. You accused her of malicious deception without a shred of incontrovertible evidence. And now you are doing the same with me. You, Downfader and co made it impossible for her, Estelle, and Justanotherview to comment here because you sowed the seeds of doubt and suspicion in the minds of others. Now they may well have said things that were deliberately intended to antagonise, but I have not. So do you intend to destroy my future here with accusations and insinuations, or will you accept that I happened to admire their courage, albeit rather foolhardy, in trying to fight off the abuse and attacks, a job that should have been done for them by the site administrators? What is my connection with them? Something like the "fifth Beatle". Would it surprise you to know that they have been posting here regularly ever since the debacle, and with the benefit of hindsight, without any problems? I don't share their views. I am my own person, and would appreciate being taken on face value, not maligned by some wannabe Sherlock. That OK with you?[/p][/quote].. well, it would be OK but for the fact you have already started insulting me in a style reminiscent of BtK et al. And it's not just me, is it? The patten is repeated, yet again. That's all I was pointing out. Have I insulted you? No Have you insulted me? Yes. And you want 'site administrators' to protect you from me? 'fifth Beatle'? - yea, sure; pull the other one.[/p][/quote]Look at you twisting this all up in the hope that I'll lose my temper! You insulted me first by suggesting that I was creating a deception, namely being Billy The Kid under a different name. Not just you? Yes it is. Quote anyone else who has made a similar accusation as you on this thread. What pattern? Just trying your luck? Your intention is to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of other readers. The fifth Beatle was a reference to someone who did not actually take part in stage performances. Try to think out of the box a bit more. Live and let live. You are being a bit trivial don't you think, seeing demons where there ain't any, perhaps? I forgive you for being suspicious. Let's see if we can move on, can we? charrlee
  • Score: -1

1:23am Mon 3 Mar 14

Sallyquigley73 says...

I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name!
I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name! Sallyquigley73
  • Score: 1

1:45am Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Sallyquigley73 wrote:
I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name!
I know many people will agree with you.

There is no reason why they should not have to pass a test, pay excise duty, and display registration plates. Other road users do. And what about a certificate of roadworthiness, and insurance?
[quote][p][bold]Sallyquigley73[/bold] wrote: I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name![/p][/quote]I know many people will agree with you. There is no reason why they should not have to pass a test, pay excise duty, and display registration plates. Other road users do. And what about a certificate of roadworthiness, and insurance? charrlee
  • Score: 3

1:51am Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sallyquigley73 wrote:
I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name!
Won't happen, too expensive to implement, police and wouldn't generate more than it would cost, it would also make less people want to cycle.
[quote][p][bold]Sallyquigley73[/bold] wrote: I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name![/p][/quote]Won't happen, too expensive to implement, police and wouldn't generate more than it would cost, it would also make less people want to cycle. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:12am Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Sallyquigley73 wrote:
I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name!
I know many people will agree with you.

There is no reason why they should not have to pass a test, pay excise duty, and display registration plates. Other road users do. And what about a certificate of roadworthiness, and insurance?
Are you being serious or not? But since when did pedestrians pay for and display these things? What about horse riders? Mobility scooters(besides the ones for road use)? Push chairs? Wheelchairs? After all, they're also road users by defenition of law and not every motorist pays excise duty either, such as those who drive a toyota prius or the new, hybrid, Porsche 918 Spyder that is MORE economical than the prius despite having a big V-8 engine, or even people who drive/ride all electric vehicles like the Renault Zoe or offerings from Zero Motorcycles, a company that makes electric motorbikes.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sallyquigley73[/bold] wrote: I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name![/p][/quote]I know many people will agree with you. There is no reason why they should not have to pass a test, pay excise duty, and display registration plates. Other road users do. And what about a certificate of roadworthiness, and insurance?[/p][/quote]Are you being serious or not? But since when did pedestrians pay for and display these things? What about horse riders? Mobility scooters(besides the ones for road use)? Push chairs? Wheelchairs? After all, they're also road users by defenition of law and not every motorist pays excise duty either, such as those who drive a toyota prius or the new, hybrid, Porsche 918 Spyder that is MORE economical than the prius despite having a big V-8 engine, or even people who drive/ride all electric vehicles like the Renault Zoe or offerings from Zero Motorcycles, a company that makes electric motorbikes. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

7:47am Mon 3 Mar 14

car driver says...

Bring back the cycling proficionary test we all did at school and still do at some schools Norris from a certain TV show proudly sports his. What a shame as mature adults once we hit that road we own it no matter what yes we do have protection that's obvious in a car ,but why do you put yourself and others at such a risk maybe a visit to A/E and see what a wonderful dedicated job and the air ambulance and our ambulance drivers do to scoop up what has been left behind after sheer stupidity because of I must get there first .Regularly I drive to and from Southampton and Motor cyclists pass you by exceeding the speed limit and then the cyclist weaving in and out of the traffic why says one because I can. there's not a lot of hops there is there and then boom boom .we hit the headlines never mind about the car driver hes in the wrong no matter .Lets all get back to reality we only have once chance in life lets give it the best one.
Bring back the cycling proficionary test we all did at school and still do at some schools Norris from a certain TV show proudly sports his. What a shame as mature adults once we hit that road we own it no matter what yes we do have protection that's obvious in a car ,but why do you put yourself and others at such a risk maybe a visit to A/E and see what a wonderful dedicated job and the air ambulance and our ambulance drivers do to scoop up what has been left behind after sheer stupidity because of I must get there first .Regularly I drive to and from Southampton and Motor cyclists pass you by exceeding the speed limit and then the cyclist weaving in and out of the traffic why says one because I can. there's not a lot of hops there is there and then boom boom .we hit the headlines never mind about the car driver hes in the wrong no matter .Lets all get back to reality we only have once chance in life lets give it the best one. car driver
  • Score: 3

8:51am Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

car driver wrote:
Bring back the cycling proficionary test we all did at school and still do at some schools Norris from a certain TV show proudly sports his. What a shame as mature adults once we hit that road we own it no matter what yes we do have protection that's obvious in a car ,but why do you put yourself and others at such a risk maybe a visit to A/E and see what a wonderful dedicated job and the air ambulance and our ambulance drivers do to scoop up what has been left behind after sheer stupidity because of I must get there first .Regularly I drive to and from Southampton and Motor cyclists pass you by exceeding the speed limit and then the cyclist weaving in and out of the traffic why says one because I can. there's not a lot of hops there is there and then boom boom .we hit the headlines never mind about the car driver hes in the wrong no matter .Lets all get back to reality we only have once chance in life lets give it the best one.
Actually, there's only a tiny number of schools now that DON'T include the training that replaced the cycling proficiency stuff, NOBODY owns the road and that "weaving" i and out of traffic is called FILTERING, which is LEGAL for cyclists AND motorcyclists to do.
[quote][p][bold]car driver[/bold] wrote: Bring back the cycling proficionary test we all did at school and still do at some schools Norris from a certain TV show proudly sports his. What a shame as mature adults once we hit that road we own it no matter what yes we do have protection that's obvious in a car ,but why do you put yourself and others at such a risk maybe a visit to A/E and see what a wonderful dedicated job and the air ambulance and our ambulance drivers do to scoop up what has been left behind after sheer stupidity because of I must get there first .Regularly I drive to and from Southampton and Motor cyclists pass you by exceeding the speed limit and then the cyclist weaving in and out of the traffic why says one because I can. there's not a lot of hops there is there and then boom boom .we hit the headlines never mind about the car driver hes in the wrong no matter .Lets all get back to reality we only have once chance in life lets give it the best one.[/p][/quote]Actually, there's only a tiny number of schools now that DON'T include the training that replaced the cycling proficiency stuff, NOBODY owns the road and that "weaving" i and out of traffic is called FILTERING, which is LEGAL for cyclists AND motorcyclists to do. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

9:46am Mon 3 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices.

Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices. Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion. From the sidelines
  • Score: 1

9:55am Mon 3 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

espanuel wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
espanuel wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Burt HInkler wrote:
The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.
No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.
High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily.
If I remember correctly, numbers of Spanish cyclists dropped dramatically due to those laws, hence it will NOT be made law in Britain, we want to ENCOURAGE people to cycle, not discourage them, such laws make cycling sound far more dangerous than it is, should pedestrians wear hi-vis and helmets because they're 60 times more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is?
You are totally wrong. I think you have got your facts a bit twisted.
I'd be delighted to read the source data for your assertion, however, I suspect that you are going to struggle to present it.

Fortunately, unlike Spain, the UK doesn't have a history of being a dictatorship, therefore the chances of helmets, hi-viz, etc. becoming mandatory are very slim.
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burt HInkler[/bold] wrote: The majority of cyclists are totally irresponsible on the road and need licensing and pay road tax. The majority of cyclists on the road as of today will not be wearing any hi vis clothing or have adequate lighting. The agenda is with them not car drivers.[/p][/quote]No such thing as road tax, hi-vis clothing is NOT and should NOT be a legal requirement(how does it work when people don't look or don't care in the first place) and the majority DO have lights, most only use "be seen" lights, others like me use more powerful lights to see what's in front of me AND to be seen.[/p][/quote]High visibility clothing is the law in here Spain for all cyclists and a safety hat. And also if you breakdown in your car by law you have to wear high visibility jacket outside of the car and not sit in the car. So why cant they make it law in the UK. If you do not wear this then you can be pulled over Guardia Civil and fined heavily.[/p][/quote]If I remember correctly, numbers of Spanish cyclists dropped dramatically due to those laws, hence it will NOT be made law in Britain, we want to ENCOURAGE people to cycle, not discourage them, such laws make cycling sound far more dangerous than it is, should pedestrians wear hi-vis and helmets because they're 60 times more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is?[/p][/quote]You are totally wrong. I think you have got your facts a bit twisted.[/p][/quote]I'd be delighted to read the source data for your assertion, however, I suspect that you are going to struggle to present it. Fortunately, unlike Spain, the UK doesn't have a history of being a dictatorship, therefore the chances of helmets, hi-viz, etc. becoming mandatory are very slim. From the sidelines
  • Score: 3

11:30am Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Sallyquigley73 wrote:
I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name!
I know many people will agree with you.

There is no reason why they should not have to pass a test, pay excise duty, and display registration plates. Other road users do. And what about a certificate of roadworthiness, and insurance?
Are you being serious or not? But since when did pedestrians pay for and display these things? What about horse riders? Mobility scooters(besides the ones for road use)? Push chairs? Wheelchairs? After all, they're also road users by defenition of law and not every motorist pays excise duty either, such as those who drive a toyota prius or the new, hybrid, Porsche 918 Spyder that is MORE economical than the prius despite having a big V-8 engine, or even people who drive/ride all electric vehicles like the Renault Zoe or offerings from Zero Motorcycles, a company that makes electric motorbikes.
I don't want to take an oppositional stance here, Ginger. The only way we are going to end this animosity, this tedious war between drivers and cyclists (many of which do both, I know) is to find some common ground for dialogue. At the moment there is none.
With no experience, having taken no test, nor paid any form of duty, insurance, or possession of a certificate of roadworthiness and clear, visible means of identification, a cyclist of any age has the legal right to set out across Southampton right now.
If we had a "Gingermotorist" filming all the cyclists who happen to be doing something wrong, we would not be able to shame them on You Tube as you do with drivers, by publishing or showing the registration plate. Cyclists ain't got one. Cyclists travel in complete anonymity.
You cannot expect the motorised business world to step back in deference to the sudden popularity of cycling. There has to be mutual acceptance and respect.
Years ago there was much less traffic on the roads, and cycling was safer. Did a lot of cycling myself, as I could not afford a car. But there is a great difference between the commonly used single-speed and 3-speed "touring" cycles of the past, and the way they were ridden, and the modern cycles which are designed to move fast.
You know as well as anyone else that the cyclists cannot win any free-for-all battle against motorised transport - it is way too popular, and regarded as essential to the economy. More and more cyclists will be injured and killed in road accidents, and the popularity of cycling will diminish. If for no other reason, as the "cycle fanatic" generation grows older, the younger generations coming up will not want to be identified with those "old fogey cyclists who try to get killed on the roads".

If a driver got in a car and travelled at 20mph with no tax, insurance, MOT(where appropriate),licence or registration plates, everyone would be outraged. But cyclists have just that freedom. I agree the weight and function of a motor vehicle is a significant factor, but not with regards to the five requirements listed, except the AMOUNTS payable.

At present I have absolutely no idea HOW MUCH cyclists should pay. If it was all too expensive, parents would not be able to finance it for their children. There will be many who will be excluded from all payments for various reasons, but there is no reason why every cyclist should not, by law, have to hold a proficiency test certificate/cycling licence, a roadworthiness certificate for the bike, and visible registration plates.( How else will you be able to encourage good practice, and prosecute offenders in the cycling community? ) Perhaps parents motor insurance could be re-packaged to cover cycle insurance, if it isn't already(I really do not know).

Well, that's all I can think of for the moment. But one thing is absolutely certain : the day of reckoning for cyclists is coming.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sallyquigley73[/bold] wrote: I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name![/p][/quote]I know many people will agree with you. There is no reason why they should not have to pass a test, pay excise duty, and display registration plates. Other road users do. And what about a certificate of roadworthiness, and insurance?[/p][/quote]Are you being serious or not? But since when did pedestrians pay for and display these things? What about horse riders? Mobility scooters(besides the ones for road use)? Push chairs? Wheelchairs? After all, they're also road users by defenition of law and not every motorist pays excise duty either, such as those who drive a toyota prius or the new, hybrid, Porsche 918 Spyder that is MORE economical than the prius despite having a big V-8 engine, or even people who drive/ride all electric vehicles like the Renault Zoe or offerings from Zero Motorcycles, a company that makes electric motorbikes.[/p][/quote]I don't want to take an oppositional stance here, Ginger. The only way we are going to end this animosity, this tedious war between drivers and cyclists (many of which do both, I know) is to find some common ground for dialogue. At the moment there is none. With no experience, having taken no test, nor paid any form of duty, insurance, or possession of a certificate of roadworthiness and clear, visible means of identification, a cyclist of any age has the legal right to set out across Southampton right now. If we had a "Gingermotorist" filming all the cyclists who happen to be doing something wrong, we would not be able to shame them on You Tube as you do with drivers, by publishing or showing the registration plate. Cyclists ain't got one. Cyclists travel in complete anonymity. You cannot expect the motorised business world to step back in deference to the sudden popularity of cycling. There has to be mutual acceptance and respect. Years ago there was much less traffic on the roads, and cycling was safer. Did a lot of cycling myself, as I could not afford a car. But there is a great difference between the commonly used single-speed and 3-speed "touring" cycles of the past, and the way they were ridden, and the modern cycles which are designed to move fast. You know as well as anyone else that the cyclists cannot win any free-for-all battle against motorised transport - it is way too popular, and regarded as essential to the economy. More and more cyclists will be injured and killed in road accidents, and the popularity of cycling will diminish. If for no other reason, as the "cycle fanatic" generation grows older, the younger generations coming up will not want to be identified with those "old fogey cyclists who try to get killed on the roads". If a driver got in a car and travelled at 20mph with no tax, insurance, MOT(where appropriate),licence or registration plates, everyone would be outraged. But cyclists have just that freedom. I agree the weight and function of a motor vehicle is a significant factor, but not with regards to the five requirements listed, except the AMOUNTS payable. At present I have absolutely no idea HOW MUCH cyclists should pay. If it was all too expensive, parents would not be able to finance it for their children. There will be many who will be excluded from all payments for various reasons, but there is no reason why every cyclist should not, by law, have to hold a proficiency test certificate/cycling licence, a roadworthiness certificate for the bike, and visible registration plates.( How else will you be able to encourage good practice, and prosecute offenders in the cycling community? ) Perhaps parents motor insurance could be re-packaged to cover cycle insurance, if it isn't already(I really do not know). Well, that's all I can think of for the moment. But one thing is absolutely certain : the day of reckoning for cyclists is coming. charrlee
  • Score: -1

11:44am Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

From the sidelines wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices.

Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.
Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit.

I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat :
"The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought.

Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices. Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.[/p][/quote]Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit. I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat : "The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought. Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. charrlee
  • Score: -2

12:11pm Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

DJ Cook ‏@Downfader · 5h
@CarpioMonstro You've done a sterling effort on http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/11047142
.Cyclist_s_death_spa
rks_call_for_city_tr
ansport__revolution_
/#commentsList … but you cant win with that BillyTheKid/Charrlee troll.

Collapse  Reply
Retweet

Favourite

More

10:37 pm - 2 Mar 2014 · Details

Michael Andrews ‏@CarpioMonstro · 4h
@Downfader True.

So it was all a propaganda opportunity on behalf of the "Cycle Nazi Party", as geoff51 might put it!
Well, you both have taken a massive dive in popularity with Ginger's incredible minus88 votes, so it is enevitable that you will turn to abuse, insult, and lies as ill-temper replaces rationality.
I am not Billy The Kid, and I am not a troll.
The reason you cannot win this debate is because you are arrogant, inflexible, and your arguments lack credibility.
DJ Cook ‏@Downfader · 5h @CarpioMonstro You've done a sterling effort on http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/11047142 .Cyclist_s_death_spa rks_call_for_city_tr ansport__revolution_ /#commentsList … but you cant win with that BillyTheKid/Charrlee troll. Collapse  Reply Retweet Favourite More 10:37 pm - 2 Mar 2014 · Details Michael Andrews ‏@CarpioMonstro · 4h @Downfader True. So it was all a propaganda opportunity on behalf of the "Cycle Nazi Party", as geoff51 might put it! Well, you both have taken a massive dive in popularity with Ginger's incredible minus88 votes, so it is enevitable that you will turn to abuse, insult, and lies as ill-temper replaces rationality. I am not Billy The Kid, and I am not a troll. The reason you cannot win this debate is because you are arrogant, inflexible, and your arguments lack credibility. charrlee
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Mon 3 Mar 14

eye_of_horus says...

Ok I have seen a lot of petty squabbling on here so let me as a non bike riding non driving pedestrian give my views.

How many deaths per year does reckless driving cause other than the driver themselves?

How many deaths a year do cyclists cause other than themselves by reckless riding?

Really regarding this discussion you can argue all you want that cyclists are reckless and dont do this and dont do that. The major difference is when a driver is reckless its other peoples lives that are lost. That is the end of the debate as far as I am concerned.

Drivers can sit on their ivory towers and preach to bike riders about the fact they are unsafe but the reality is if they want to be unsafe the only person they hurt is themselves. When drivers are unsafe it's the careful drivers , pedestrians, cyclists who also die.
Ok I have seen a lot of petty squabbling on here so let me as a non bike riding non driving pedestrian give my views. How many deaths per year does reckless driving cause other than the driver themselves? How many deaths a year do cyclists cause other than themselves by reckless riding? Really regarding this discussion you can argue all you want that cyclists are reckless and dont do this and dont do that. The major difference is when a driver is reckless its other peoples lives that are lost. That is the end of the debate as far as I am concerned. Drivers can sit on their ivory towers and preach to bike riders about the fact they are unsafe but the reality is if they want to be unsafe the only person they hurt is themselves. When drivers are unsafe it's the careful drivers , pedestrians, cyclists who also die. eye_of_horus
  • Score: 2

1:51pm Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

What a load of ill-considered twaddle you have written!

Many of us disagree fiercely with what Downfader and Gingercyclist say, but you can hardly describe their arguments, or our rebuffs, as "petty squabbling"!

It is not about how many people drivers kill, and how many people cyclists kill. That is a complete misunderstanding of what this is all about.

My view has been that I'd like to see cyclists have test certificates, licences and reg. plates to bring them into line with other road users. The accidents and deaths will decrease when you have mutual respect and consideration between road users.
What a load of ill-considered twaddle you have written! Many of us disagree fiercely with what Downfader and Gingercyclist say, but you can hardly describe their arguments, or our rebuffs, as "petty squabbling"! It is not about how many people drivers kill, and how many people cyclists kill. That is a complete misunderstanding of what this is all about. My view has been that I'd like to see cyclists have test certificates, licences and reg. plates to bring them into line with other road users. The accidents and deaths will decrease when you have mutual respect and consideration between road users. charrlee
  • Score: -2

2:04pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Sallyquigley73 wrote:
I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name!
I know many people will agree with you.

There is no reason why they should not have to pass a test, pay excise duty, and display registration plates. Other road users do. And what about a certificate of roadworthiness, and insurance?
Are you being serious or not? But since when did pedestrians pay for and display these things? What about horse riders? Mobility scooters(besides the ones for road use)? Push chairs? Wheelchairs? After all, they're also road users by defenition of law and not every motorist pays excise duty either, such as those who drive a toyota prius or the new, hybrid, Porsche 918 Spyder that is MORE economical than the prius despite having a big V-8 engine, or even people who drive/ride all electric vehicles like the Renault Zoe or offerings from Zero Motorcycles, a company that makes electric motorbikes.
I don't want to take an oppositional stance here, Ginger. The only way we are going to end this animosity, this tedious war between drivers and cyclists (many of which do both, I know) is to find some common ground for dialogue. At the moment there is none.
With no experience, having taken no test, nor paid any form of duty, insurance, or possession of a certificate of roadworthiness and clear, visible means of identification, a cyclist of any age has the legal right to set out across Southampton right now.
If we had a "Gingermotorist
" filming all the cyclists who happen to be doing something wrong, we would not be able to shame them on You Tube as you do with drivers, by publishing or showing the registration plate. Cyclists ain't got one. Cyclists travel in complete anonymity.
You cannot expect the motorised business world to step back in deference to the sudden popularity of cycling. There has to be mutual acceptance and respect.
Years ago there was much less traffic on the roads, and cycling was safer. Did a lot of cycling myself, as I could not afford a car. But there is a great difference between the commonly used single-speed and 3-speed "touring" cycles of the past, and the way they were ridden, and the modern cycles which are designed to move fast.
You know as well as anyone else that the cyclists cannot win any free-for-all battle against motorised transport - it is way too popular, and regarded as essential to the economy. More and more cyclists will be injured and killed in road accidents, and the popularity of cycling will diminish. If for no other reason, as the "cycle fanatic" generation grows older, the younger generations coming up will not want to be identified with those "old fogey cyclists who try to get killed on the roads".

If a driver got in a car and travelled at 20mph with no tax, insurance, MOT(where appropriate),licence or registration plates, everyone would be outraged. But cyclists have just that freedom. I agree the weight and function of a motor vehicle is a significant factor, but not with regards to the five requirements listed, except the AMOUNTS payable.

At present I have absolutely no idea HOW MUCH cyclists should pay. If it was all too expensive, parents would not be able to finance it for their children. There will be many who will be excluded from all payments for various reasons, but there is no reason why every cyclist should not, by law, have to hold a proficiency test certificate/cycling licence, a roadworthiness certificate for the bike, and visible registration plates.( How else will you be able to encourage good practice, and prosecute offenders in the cycling community? ) Perhaps parents motor insurance could be re-packaged to cover cycle insurance, if it isn't already(I really do not know).

Well, that's all I can think of for the moment. But one thing is absolutely certain : the day of reckoning for cyclists is coming.
Cycle insurance is already covered by home and contents insurance for most cyclists, this is because it would cost more to collect the seperate payments than the cost of the insurance would generate, I'm insured through British Cycling and as for all the othe stuff like excise duty and licences, it would cost too much to implement, too much to enforce and would reduce numbers of cyclists, other countries have looked into doing such things but decided not to for these very reasons.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sallyquigley73[/bold] wrote: I personally think that cyclists should have to take a test before using public roads...just like drivers do just so they are aware of the road laws and safety aspects of cycling. I know not all cyclists are idiots but I'm fed up of them pulling out onto main roads and not even looking to see if traffic is coming. The idiot cyclists give the good ones a bad name![/p][/quote]I know many people will agree with you. There is no reason why they should not have to pass a test, pay excise duty, and display registration plates. Other road users do. And what about a certificate of roadworthiness, and insurance?[/p][/quote]Are you being serious or not? But since when did pedestrians pay for and display these things? What about horse riders? Mobility scooters(besides the ones for road use)? Push chairs? Wheelchairs? After all, they're also road users by defenition of law and not every motorist pays excise duty either, such as those who drive a toyota prius or the new, hybrid, Porsche 918 Spyder that is MORE economical than the prius despite having a big V-8 engine, or even people who drive/ride all electric vehicles like the Renault Zoe or offerings from Zero Motorcycles, a company that makes electric motorbikes.[/p][/quote]I don't want to take an oppositional stance here, Ginger. The only way we are going to end this animosity, this tedious war between drivers and cyclists (many of which do both, I know) is to find some common ground for dialogue. At the moment there is none. With no experience, having taken no test, nor paid any form of duty, insurance, or possession of a certificate of roadworthiness and clear, visible means of identification, a cyclist of any age has the legal right to set out across Southampton right now. If we had a "Gingermotorist " filming all the cyclists who happen to be doing something wrong, we would not be able to shame them on You Tube as you do with drivers, by publishing or showing the registration plate. Cyclists ain't got one. Cyclists travel in complete anonymity. You cannot expect the motorised business world to step back in deference to the sudden popularity of cycling. There has to be mutual acceptance and respect. Years ago there was much less traffic on the roads, and cycling was safer. Did a lot of cycling myself, as I could not afford a car. But there is a great difference between the commonly used single-speed and 3-speed "touring" cycles of the past, and the way they were ridden, and the modern cycles which are designed to move fast. You know as well as anyone else that the cyclists cannot win any free-for-all battle against motorised transport - it is way too popular, and regarded as essential to the economy. More and more cyclists will be injured and killed in road accidents, and the popularity of cycling will diminish. If for no other reason, as the "cycle fanatic" generation grows older, the younger generations coming up will not want to be identified with those "old fogey cyclists who try to get killed on the roads". If a driver got in a car and travelled at 20mph with no tax, insurance, MOT(where appropriate),licence or registration plates, everyone would be outraged. But cyclists have just that freedom. I agree the weight and function of a motor vehicle is a significant factor, but not with regards to the five requirements listed, except the AMOUNTS payable. At present I have absolutely no idea HOW MUCH cyclists should pay. If it was all too expensive, parents would not be able to finance it for their children. There will be many who will be excluded from all payments for various reasons, but there is no reason why every cyclist should not, by law, have to hold a proficiency test certificate/cycling licence, a roadworthiness certificate for the bike, and visible registration plates.( How else will you be able to encourage good practice, and prosecute offenders in the cycling community? ) Perhaps parents motor insurance could be re-packaged to cover cycle insurance, if it isn't already(I really do not know). Well, that's all I can think of for the moment. But one thing is absolutely certain : the day of reckoning for cyclists is coming.[/p][/quote]Cycle insurance is already covered by home and contents insurance for most cyclists, this is because it would cost more to collect the seperate payments than the cost of the insurance would generate, I'm insured through British Cycling and as for all the othe stuff like excise duty and licences, it would cost too much to implement, too much to enforce and would reduce numbers of cyclists, other countries have looked into doing such things but decided not to for these very reasons. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

2:05pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices.

Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.
Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit.

I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat :
"The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought.

Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.
I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices. Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.[/p][/quote]Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit. I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat : "The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought. Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

eye_of_horus wrote:
Ok I have seen a lot of petty squabbling on here so let me as a non bike riding non driving pedestrian give my views.

How many deaths per year does reckless driving cause other than the driver themselves?

How many deaths a year do cyclists cause other than themselves by reckless riding?

Really regarding this discussion you can argue all you want that cyclists are reckless and dont do this and dont do that. The major difference is when a driver is reckless its other peoples lives that are lost. That is the end of the debate as far as I am concerned.

Drivers can sit on their ivory towers and preach to bike riders about the fact they are unsafe but the reality is if they want to be unsafe the only person they hurt is themselves. When drivers are unsafe it's the careful drivers , pedestrians, cyclists who also die.
Like the old guy today, I was passing parked cars on my left, leaving enough room so that if a car door swung open I wouldn't get hit, old guy forced his way past with barely an inch or so between me and his nearside wing mirror, I gave a blast of my horn, he gave the 1 finger salute and where was he in such a rush to get to that he had to put my life in danger? His driveway 50 meters up the road, when I asked him about it, he started effing and blinding that I should have bee right up next to the parked cars and that I should learn how to ride, he just wouldn't listen to the sense about avoiding the doorzone when passing parked cars...
Oh and not once did I swear at him.
[quote][p][bold]eye_of_horus[/bold] wrote: Ok I have seen a lot of petty squabbling on here so let me as a non bike riding non driving pedestrian give my views. How many deaths per year does reckless driving cause other than the driver themselves? How many deaths a year do cyclists cause other than themselves by reckless riding? Really regarding this discussion you can argue all you want that cyclists are reckless and dont do this and dont do that. The major difference is when a driver is reckless its other peoples lives that are lost. That is the end of the debate as far as I am concerned. Drivers can sit on their ivory towers and preach to bike riders about the fact they are unsafe but the reality is if they want to be unsafe the only person they hurt is themselves. When drivers are unsafe it's the careful drivers , pedestrians, cyclists who also die.[/p][/quote]Like the old guy today, I was passing parked cars on my left, leaving enough room so that if a car door swung open I wouldn't get hit, old guy forced his way past with barely an inch or so between me and his nearside wing mirror, I gave a blast of my horn, he gave the 1 finger salute and where was he in such a rush to get to that he had to put my life in danger? His driveway 50 meters up the road, when I asked him about it, he started effing and blinding that I should have bee right up next to the parked cars and that I should learn how to ride, he just wouldn't listen to the sense about avoiding the doorzone when passing parked cars... Oh and not once did I swear at him. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

2:26pm Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices.

Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.
Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit.

I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat :
"The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought.

Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.
I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.
I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists.

You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility.

Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion.

Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group.

This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here.

You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices. Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.[/p][/quote]Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit. I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat : "The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought. Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists. You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility. Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion. Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group. This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here. You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors. charrlee
  • Score: -2

2:33pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices.

Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.
Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit.

I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat :
"The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought.

Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.
I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.
I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists.

You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility.

Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion.

Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group.

This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here.

You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.
Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices. Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.[/p][/quote]Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit. I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat : "The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought. Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists. You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility. Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion. Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group. This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here. You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.[/p][/quote]Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

3:19pm Mon 3 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

So I'm glad I stayed out of this one!

Few points - Just where do people think visible licence plates could go on a bike?

It's utterly pointless bringing up the Road Tax/VED argument from both sides. It's been done to the death. VED is paid according to a vehicle's emissions, road tax doesn't exist and roads are paid for through council tax. Those are unarguable facts. People use Road Tax as a common phrase so that others not possessing this knowledge will understand - but it is an invalid argument claiming cyclists pay no road tax therefore have no say on the roads.

A small minority of motorists drink drive, take drugs and drive, speed, run red lights, turn without indicating, use their phone whilst driving and drive without due care and attention. This minority are giving the entire driving community a bad reputation as they seem responsible for the amount of avoidable accidents on the roads and it has to stop.

A small minority of cyclists jump red lights, ride on pavements(which do not have cycle lanes/traffic light throughways like the Avenue lights do), ride without lights on at nights, ride without helmets and turn without signalling. This minority give the entire cycling community a bad reputation, which is unjustified and a sweeping generalisation towards thousands of people you know nothing about, regardless of whether or not they wear lycra.

Bottom line whether you are a cyclist or a motorist. Pay attention. Maintain your mode of transport. Travel safely. Don't cause others danger through your own laziness.
So I'm glad I stayed out of this one! Few points - Just where do people think visible licence plates could go on a bike? It's utterly pointless bringing up the Road Tax/VED argument from both sides. It's been done to the death. VED is paid according to a vehicle's emissions, road tax doesn't exist and roads are paid for through council tax. Those are unarguable facts. People use Road Tax as a common phrase so that others not possessing this knowledge will understand - but it is an invalid argument claiming cyclists pay no road tax therefore have no say on the roads. A small minority of motorists drink drive, take drugs and drive, speed, run red lights, turn without indicating, use their phone whilst driving and drive without due care and attention. This minority are giving the entire driving community a bad reputation as they seem responsible for the amount of avoidable accidents on the roads and it has to stop. A small minority of cyclists jump red lights, ride on pavements(which do not have cycle lanes/traffic light throughways like the Avenue lights do), ride without lights on at nights, ride without helmets and turn without signalling. This minority give the entire cycling community a bad reputation, which is unjustified and a sweeping generalisation towards thousands of people you know nothing about, regardless of whether or not they wear lycra. Bottom line whether you are a cyclist or a motorist. Pay attention. Maintain your mode of transport. Travel safely. Don't cause others danger through your own laziness. camerajuan
  • Score: 5

3:23pm Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices.

Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.
Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit.

I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat :
"The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought.

Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.
I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.
I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists.

You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility.

Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion.

Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group.

This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here.

You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.
Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.
How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page.

You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers.

Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day.

There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices. Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.[/p][/quote]Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit. I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat : "The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought. Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists. You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility. Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion. Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group. This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here. You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.[/p][/quote]Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.[/p][/quote]How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page. You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers. Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day. There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss. charrlee
  • Score: -4

3:29pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Researcher75 says...

GOOD! BYE! EXCELLENT!
GOOD! BYE! EXCELLENT! Researcher75
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices.

Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.
Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit.

I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat :
"The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought.

Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.
I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.
I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists.

You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility.

Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion.

Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group.

This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here.

You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.
Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.
How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page.

You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers.

Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day.

There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss.
I posted a link to my youtube channel on here several comments previously, so why go to Downfader's twitter feed if you weren't stalking us?
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices. Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.[/p][/quote]Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit. I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat : "The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought. Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists. You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility. Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion. Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group. This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here. You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.[/p][/quote]Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.[/p][/quote]How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page. You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers. Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day. There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss.[/p][/quote]I posted a link to my youtube channel on here several comments previously, so why go to Downfader's twitter feed if you weren't stalking us? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

3:57pm Mon 3 Mar 14

downfader says...

I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist

2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue downfader
  • Score: 2

4:03pm Mon 3 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist


2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"? camerajuan
  • Score: 5

4:16pm Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices.

Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.
Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit.

I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat :
"The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought.

Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.
I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.
I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists.

You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility.

Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion.

Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group.

This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here.

You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.
Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.
How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page.

You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers.

Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day.

There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss.
I posted a link to my youtube channel on here several comments previously, so why go to Downfader's twitter feed if you weren't stalking us?
When I click on links here they don't work.

How can visiting someone's "twitter feed" once be classed as stalking? Are "followers" classed as stalkers, then?

I repeat : you just don't like being found out. More proof of that is Cook's childish retaliations above, with which I shall not trouble myself.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices. Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.[/p][/quote]Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit. I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat : "The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought. Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists. You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility. Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion. Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group. This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here. You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.[/p][/quote]Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.[/p][/quote]How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page. You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers. Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day. There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss.[/p][/quote]I posted a link to my youtube channel on here several comments previously, so why go to Downfader's twitter feed if you weren't stalking us?[/p][/quote]When I click on links here they don't work. How can visiting someone's "twitter feed" once be classed as stalking? Are "followers" classed as stalkers, then? I repeat : you just don't like being found out. More proof of that is Cook's childish retaliations above, with which I shall not trouble myself. charrlee
  • Score: -3

4:23pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices.

Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.
Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit.

I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat :
"The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought.

Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.
I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.
I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists.

You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility.

Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion.

Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group.

This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here.

You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.
Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.
How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page.

You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers.

Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day.

There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss.
I posted a link to my youtube channel on here several comments previously, so why go to Downfader's twitter feed if you weren't stalking us?
When I click on links here they don't work.

How can visiting someone's "twitter feed" once be classed as stalking? Are "followers" classed as stalkers, then?

I repeat : you just don't like being found out. More proof of that is Cook's childish retaliations above, with which I shall not trouble myself.
Highlight the web address, right click, click copy, open a new tab on your browser, open the new tab and then paste the web address into the address bar, simple, or, even easier, highlight the web address, right click and click "open link in new tab".
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices. Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.[/p][/quote]Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit. I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat : "The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought. Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists. You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility. Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion. Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group. This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here. You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.[/p][/quote]Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.[/p][/quote]How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page. You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers. Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day. There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss.[/p][/quote]I posted a link to my youtube channel on here several comments previously, so why go to Downfader's twitter feed if you weren't stalking us?[/p][/quote]When I click on links here they don't work. How can visiting someone's "twitter feed" once be classed as stalking? Are "followers" classed as stalkers, then? I repeat : you just don't like being found out. More proof of that is Cook's childish retaliations above, with which I shall not trouble myself.[/p][/quote]Highlight the web address, right click, click copy, open a new tab on your browser, open the new tab and then paste the web address into the address bar, simple, or, even easier, highlight the web address, right click and click "open link in new tab". Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

5:05pm Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices.

Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.
Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit.

I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat :
"The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought.

Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.
I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.
I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists.

You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility.

Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion.

Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group.

This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here.

You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.
Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.
How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page.

You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers.

Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day.

There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss.
I posted a link to my youtube channel on here several comments previously, so why go to Downfader's twitter feed if you weren't stalking us?
When I click on links here they don't work.

How can visiting someone's "twitter feed" once be classed as stalking? Are "followers" classed as stalkers, then?

I repeat : you just don't like being found out. More proof of that is Cook's childish retaliations above, with which I shall not trouble myself.
Highlight the web address, right click, click copy, open a new tab on your browser, open the new tab and then paste the web address into the address bar, simple, or, even easier, highlight the web address, right click and click "open link in new tab".
It has just taken me nearly five minutes scrolling up and down this thread looking for your web address. It took less than a minute to google Downfader, and then click DJCook Downfader Twitter, and there you are talking to him. The link is a "live" one and took me straight to the website

However, either way, that web address simply brings up videos that seem unrelated to the work you do. I think the first one was "LikeIlikeGamez", and another was "Old Macdonald's Farm". Hopeless. I wanted to see the one of you riding like a lunatic in London. Where was it?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices. Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.[/p][/quote]Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit. I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat : "The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought. Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists. You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility. Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion. Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group. This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here. You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.[/p][/quote]Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.[/p][/quote]How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page. You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers. Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day. There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss.[/p][/quote]I posted a link to my youtube channel on here several comments previously, so why go to Downfader's twitter feed if you weren't stalking us?[/p][/quote]When I click on links here they don't work. How can visiting someone's "twitter feed" once be classed as stalking? Are "followers" classed as stalkers, then? I repeat : you just don't like being found out. More proof of that is Cook's childish retaliations above, with which I shall not trouble myself.[/p][/quote]Highlight the web address, right click, click copy, open a new tab on your browser, open the new tab and then paste the web address into the address bar, simple, or, even easier, highlight the web address, right click and click "open link in new tab".[/p][/quote]It has just taken me nearly five minutes scrolling up and down this thread looking for your web address. It took less than a minute to google Downfader, and then click DJCook Downfader Twitter, and there you are talking to him. The link is a "live" one and took me straight to the website However, either way, that web address simply brings up videos that seem unrelated to the work you do. I think the first one was "LikeIlikeGamez", and another was "Old Macdonald's Farm". Hopeless. I wanted to see the one of you riding like a lunatic in London. Where was it? charrlee
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices.

Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.
Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit.

I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat :
"The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought.

Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.
I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.
I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists.

You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility.

Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion.

Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group.

This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here.

You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.
Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.
How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page.

You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers.

Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day.

There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss.
I posted a link to my youtube channel on here several comments previously, so why go to Downfader's twitter feed if you weren't stalking us?
When I click on links here they don't work.

How can visiting someone's "twitter feed" once be classed as stalking? Are "followers" classed as stalkers, then?

I repeat : you just don't like being found out. More proof of that is Cook's childish retaliations above, with which I shall not trouble myself.
Highlight the web address, right click, click copy, open a new tab on your browser, open the new tab and then paste the web address into the address bar, simple, or, even easier, highlight the web address, right click and click "open link in new tab".
It has just taken me nearly five minutes scrolling up and down this thread looking for your web address. It took less than a minute to google Downfader, and then click DJCook Downfader Twitter, and there you are talking to him. The link is a "live" one and took me straight to the website

However, either way, that web address simply brings up videos that seem unrelated to the work you do. I think the first one was "LikeIlikeGamez", and another was "Old Macdonald's Farm". Hopeless. I wanted to see the one of you riding like a lunatic in London. Where was it?
Riding like a lunatic in London? Most of the time I was stopping to check my phone's GPS to find CS3 to get to the excel center and then from CS3 to Waterloo.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]I can see why you object to Downfader, Gingercyclist, and Graham Simmons; their insistence on backing their arguments with facts and evidence must make it very difficult for you to exercise your prejudices. Gingercyclist's statement regarding roads being made for cycles is correct - the evidence is available if you wish to inform your opinion.[/p][/quote]Your sarcasm and cynicism does neither you nor cyclists any credit. I have done a significant amount of research on roads. Where is the evidence to support your contradiction regarding their purpose? Without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant. I repeat : "The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle." This is such common knowledge to anyone with a basic education, so a list of books and sources is unnecessary, I would have thought. Remember : without evidence, your assertion is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I think he was talking about when I say MODERN, tarmac paved, dust free roads,were originally made for cyclists.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, Gingercyclist, but after reading the exchange between you and downfader on Twitter, it's quite obvious your intention is to say anything in defence of the status quo for cyclists. You and Fader are young and determined now on behalf of cyclists, but you will grow old and lose favour as the tides gradually turn against your Luddite hostility. Money needs to be spent to gain credibility for cyclists if it is to survive as more than a fashion. Roads are constructed for the safe use by ALL users, not specifically for one particular group. This forum is out of the main listings now, so there seems little point in pursuing the debate here. You and fader need to consider your attitudes and approach as you lost this one big time. For you two I care very little now, but the decent cycling fraternity deserves far better ambassadors.[/p][/quote]Why even stalk us on twitter in the first place? Only strange and sad little people stalk others, even if it is across the internet.[/p][/quote]How dare you accuse me of stalking! I was trying to find your video channel, and I thought I would find the You Tube address on Downfader's Twitter page. You just don't like being found out for the charlatans you are, D J Cook (Philosopher! Ha! That's a laugh!), and Michael Andrews! Calling me a troll is just a vain effort by you to discredit me with other forum users. If they believe you, it will be unfortunate for me, but a measure of their foolishness for listening to people like you with a track record for unacceptable behaviour. You are very clever at staying the right side of the line whilst subtley provoking others, knowing the administrators have not the time to wade through the forum dialogues to seek out the real troublemakers. Billy The Kid and his associates made two mistakes : one was to underestimate your knowledge and capacity, and the other was to overestimate the administrators' capacity for dispensing justice. Like my predecessors, I shall probably lose out to you, but I am confident you will meet your match one day. There is nothing more, in my view, to discuss.[/p][/quote]I posted a link to my youtube channel on here several comments previously, so why go to Downfader's twitter feed if you weren't stalking us?[/p][/quote]When I click on links here they don't work. How can visiting someone's "twitter feed" once be classed as stalking? Are "followers" classed as stalkers, then? I repeat : you just don't like being found out. More proof of that is Cook's childish retaliations above, with which I shall not trouble myself.[/p][/quote]Highlight the web address, right click, click copy, open a new tab on your browser, open the new tab and then paste the web address into the address bar, simple, or, even easier, highlight the web address, right click and click "open link in new tab".[/p][/quote]It has just taken me nearly five minutes scrolling up and down this thread looking for your web address. It took less than a minute to google Downfader, and then click DJCook Downfader Twitter, and there you are talking to him. The link is a "live" one and took me straight to the website However, either way, that web address simply brings up videos that seem unrelated to the work you do. I think the first one was "LikeIlikeGamez", and another was "Old Macdonald's Farm". Hopeless. I wanted to see the one of you riding like a lunatic in London. Where was it?[/p][/quote]Riding like a lunatic in London? Most of the time I was stopping to check my phone's GPS to find CS3 to get to the excel center and then from CS3 to Waterloo. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

5:25pm Mon 3 Mar 14

downfader says...

camerajuan wrote:
downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist



2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
ha! Yeah

1:3 odds ;-)
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?[/p][/quote]ha! Yeah 1:3 odds ;-) downfader
  • Score: 1

6:31pm Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

downfader wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist




2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
ha! Yeah

1:3 odds ;-)
I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind.
As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you.

You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day.

Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic.

And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on.

Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?[/p][/quote]ha! Yeah 1:3 odds ;-)[/p][/quote]I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind. As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you. You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day. Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic. And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on. Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion. charrlee
  • Score: -2

8:11pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Sallyquigley73 says...

This has got ridiculous! Everyone has different views on this. Cyclists will always maintain the drivers are the idiots and drivers will maintain that cyclists are. Yes...it is the bad cyclists that give the test a bad name but I cannot think of the last time I saw a cyclist stop at a junction...they really do just ride out assuming that drivers will swerve/brake sharply to avoid them and no...this isn't the drivers not taking care...this is cyclists ignoring Stop/Give Way signs. If a driver was to do this, they would be charged with dangerous driving!

Cyclists suffer by riding a small, unsheltered vehicle so will always come off worse but they need to use common sense on roads or they will get killed and this may or may not be their own fault.

After the Olympics, there has been a massive rise in cycling and yes, it would cost a lot to implement a cycling test but at the moment, anyone can buy a bike and go cycling on the roads whether they know the road laws or not...this increases the dangers to everyone! And drivers seem to get the backlash yet I've witnessed a cyclist not looking and ride directly into an elderly pedestrian.

If everyone just took more care and assumed everyone else were idiots then we would all be ok...just stay safe and don't risk anything. No one is indestructible and no one wants to hear that their partner, child, friend etc won't be coming home as they have died.
This has got ridiculous! Everyone has different views on this. Cyclists will always maintain the drivers are the idiots and drivers will maintain that cyclists are. Yes...it is the bad cyclists that give the test a bad name but I cannot think of the last time I saw a cyclist stop at a junction...they really do just ride out assuming that drivers will swerve/brake sharply to avoid them and no...this isn't the drivers not taking care...this is cyclists ignoring Stop/Give Way signs. If a driver was to do this, they would be charged with dangerous driving! Cyclists suffer by riding a small, unsheltered vehicle so will always come off worse but they need to use common sense on roads or they will get killed and this may or may not be their own fault. After the Olympics, there has been a massive rise in cycling and yes, it would cost a lot to implement a cycling test but at the moment, anyone can buy a bike and go cycling on the roads whether they know the road laws or not...this increases the dangers to everyone! And drivers seem to get the backlash yet I've witnessed a cyclist not looking and ride directly into an elderly pedestrian. If everyone just took more care and assumed everyone else were idiots then we would all be ok...just stay safe and don't risk anything. No one is indestructible and no one wants to hear that their partner, child, friend etc won't be coming home as they have died. Sallyquigley73
  • Score: 1

1:59am Tue 4 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
downfader wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist





2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
ha! Yeah

1:3 odds ;-)
I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind.
As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you.

You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day.

Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic.

And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on.

Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.
Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos".
http://www.youtube.c
om/user/CarpioMonstr
o/videos?shelf_id=1&
sort=dd&view=0
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?[/p][/quote]ha! Yeah 1:3 odds ;-)[/p][/quote]I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind. As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you. You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day. Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic. And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on. Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.[/p][/quote]Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos". http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos?shelf_id=1& sort=dd&view=0 Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

4:37pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
Nailed it Charrlee,best post of the thread,and obviates the need for any further discussion.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]Nailed it Charrlee,best post of the thread,and obviates the need for any further discussion. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 1

5:08pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
Nailed it Charrlee,best post of the thread,and obviates the need for any further discussion.
Rather late to the party aren't you?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]Nailed it Charrlee,best post of the thread,and obviates the need for any further discussion.[/p][/quote]Rather late to the party aren't you? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

5:41pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
Look repeat after me :-
There is NO road tax anymore
What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty
Roads are funded by your council tax
And we ALL have to pay that.
Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience."

ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX !

You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification.

Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda.

A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective".

Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle.

I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.
Nailed it Charrlee,best post of the thread,and obviates the need for any further discussion.
Rather late to the party aren't you?
Never go to bed very early either Ginge.Everyone else gone home then?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: Look repeat after me :- There is NO road tax anymore What you pay is VED Vehicle Excise Duty Roads are funded by your council tax And we ALL have to pay that.[/p][/quote]Here is a small quote from Wikipedia ; "One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! ROAD TAX ! You, and various individuals here know very well what people mean. You use the refutation as a means of dodging the issue, namely that cyclists are able to use the roads without paying any excise duty for the privilege, do not have to have any legal certificate of competence, and do not have to carry any visible means of identification similar to vehicle number plates. The fact that we all pay for road maintenance through council tax is a red herring. The real, root grievance is that cyclists may "roam free", so to speak, whereas drivers may not. Never mind all the technicalities - that is the public perception, and with a very strong measure of justification. Downfader, Gingercyclist, and originally Graham Simmons come to this forum, armed with an unprecedented volume of legal and technical knowledge, ready to fan those flames of discontent felt by drivers. They do this by persistently contradicting, in a predictably arrogant, condescending and pompous fashion, the many disgruntled generalisations made by casual commenters here. They exploit the potential for disagreement by playing the innocent victim in order to present their fanatical agenda. A more sinister aspect to their activities is the participation in/approval of the filming of what appears to be drivers committing some form of motoring offence and posting the clips on You Tube. This can only be interpreted as provocative and malevolent, as such "evidence" would never be admissible in court as it is purely circumstantial, and could easily have been created by them deliberately wrong-footing drivers as a prelude, off camera. The live voice commentary that often accompanies the clips clearly indicates they are expecting trouble, and we, the viewers, are expected to take on trust their interpretation of any given incident. The camera may not lie, but the camera man can create a completely false impression by being "creatively selective". Gingercyclist is notorious for making alarming and bizarre assertions regarding the potential of the bicycle for moving house and towing a double bass, but he annoys more seriously by making false statements, as he did recently, such as that the roads were originally designed for bikes, not cars. The history books cite travel by horse and cart, troop movements, and trade purposes way back before the appearance of the bicycle. I suggest we "normal" cyclists ignore these reprobates in future, and concentrate on building a strong relationship with other road users through positive, friendly dialogue.[/p][/quote]Nailed it Charrlee,best post of the thread,and obviates the need for any further discussion.[/p][/quote]Rather late to the party aren't you?[/p][/quote]Never go to bed very early either Ginge.Everyone else gone home then? Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Tue 4 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
downfader wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist






2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
ha! Yeah

1:3 odds ;-)
I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind.
As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you.

You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day.

Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic.

And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on.

Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.
Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos".
http://www.youtube.c

om/user/CarpioMonstr

o/videos?shelf_id=1&
amp;
sort=dd&view=0
Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers.

But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender.

What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact".

The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment.

Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?[/p][/quote]ha! Yeah 1:3 odds ;-)[/p][/quote]I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind. As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you. You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day. Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic. And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on. Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.[/p][/quote]Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos". http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos?shelf_id=1& amp; sort=dd&view=0[/p][/quote]Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers. But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender. What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact". The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment. Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view. charrlee
  • Score: 0

10:21pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
downfader wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist







2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
ha! Yeah

1:3 odds ;-)
I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind.
As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you.

You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day.

Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic.

And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on.

Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.
Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos".
http://www.youtube.c


om/user/CarpioMonstr


o/videos?shelf_id=1&
amp;
amp;
sort=dd&view=0
Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers.

But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender.

What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact".

The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment.

Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.
Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?[/p][/quote]ha! Yeah 1:3 odds ;-)[/p][/quote]I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind. As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you. You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day. Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic. And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on. Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.[/p][/quote]Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos". http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos?shelf_id=1& amp; amp; sort=dd&view=0[/p][/quote]Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers. But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender. What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact". The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment. Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

10:59pm Tue 4 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
downfader wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist








2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
ha! Yeah

1:3 odds ;-)
I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind.
As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you.

You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day.

Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic.

And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on.

Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.
Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos".
http://www.youtube.c



om/user/CarpioMonstr



o/videos?shelf_id=1&
amp;
amp;
amp;
sort=dd&view=0
Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers.

But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender.

What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact".

The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment.

Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.
Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.
This one :
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH
cY
You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!"
The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive.

Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?[/p][/quote]ha! Yeah 1:3 odds ;-)[/p][/quote]I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind. As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you. You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day. Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic. And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on. Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.[/p][/quote]Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos". http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos?shelf_id=1& amp; amp; amp; sort=dd&view=0[/p][/quote]Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers. But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender. What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact". The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment. Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.[/p][/quote]This one : http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH cY You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!" The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive. Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him. charrlee
  • Score: 1

11:02pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
downfader wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist









2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
ha! Yeah

1:3 odds ;-)
I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind.
As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you.

You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day.

Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic.

And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on.

Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.
Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos".
http://www.youtube.c




om/user/CarpioMonstr




o/videos?shelf_id=1&
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
sort=dd&view=0
Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers.

But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender.

What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact".

The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment.

Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.
Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.
This one :
http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH

cY
You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!"
The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive.

Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him.
No, I had to slow down and who the hell's Mr Crowe?
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?[/p][/quote]ha! Yeah 1:3 odds ;-)[/p][/quote]I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind. As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you. You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day. Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic. And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on. Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.[/p][/quote]Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos". http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos?shelf_id=1& amp; amp; amp; amp; sort=dd&view=0[/p][/quote]Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers. But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender. What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact". The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment. Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.[/p][/quote]This one : http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH cY You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!" The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive. Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him.[/p][/quote]No, I had to slow down and who the hell's Mr Crowe? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

11:10pm Tue 4 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
downfader wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist










2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
ha! Yeah

1:3 odds ;-)
I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind.
As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you.

You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day.

Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic.

And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on.

Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.
Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos".
http://www.youtube.c





om/user/CarpioMonstr





o/videos?shelf_id=1&
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
sort=dd&view=0
Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers.

But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender.

What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact".

The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment.

Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.
Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.
This one :
http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH


cY
You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!"
The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive.

Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him.
No, I had to slow down and who the hell's Mr Crowe?
You don't remember Dr Crowe? Perhaps he joined after you left.

You had to slow down. That's all. And it warranted foul-mouthed abuse from you that the whole street could hear.

All right. Forget Dr Crowe. What would a strict teacher have said?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?[/p][/quote]ha! Yeah 1:3 odds ;-)[/p][/quote]I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind. As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you. You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day. Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic. And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on. Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.[/p][/quote]Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos". http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos?shelf_id=1& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; sort=dd&view=0[/p][/quote]Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers. But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender. What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact". The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment. Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.[/p][/quote]This one : http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH cY You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!" The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive. Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him.[/p][/quote]No, I had to slow down and who the hell's Mr Crowe?[/p][/quote]You don't remember Dr Crowe? Perhaps he joined after you left. You had to slow down. That's all. And it warranted foul-mouthed abuse from you that the whole street could hear. All right. Forget Dr Crowe. What would a strict teacher have said? charrlee
  • Score: 1

11:28pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
downfader wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist











2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
ha! Yeah

1:3 odds ;-)
I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind.
As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you.

You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day.

Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic.

And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on.

Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.
Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos".
http://www.youtube.c






om/user/CarpioMonstr






o/videos?shelf_id=1&
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
sort=dd&view=0
Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers.

But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender.

What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact".

The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment.

Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.
Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.
This one :
http://www.youtube.c



om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH



cY
You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!"
The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive.

Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him.
No, I had to slow down and who the hell's Mr Crowe?
You don't remember Dr Crowe? Perhaps he joined after you left.

You had to slow down. That's all. And it warranted foul-mouthed abuse from you that the whole street could hear.

All right. Forget Dr Crowe. What would a strict teacher have said?
Hey, I don't appreciate 1.5 tonnes of metal being driven in such a way near me, besides, they were able to give the group of kids behind me plenty of room, so why weren't they able to wait until AFTER getting past the right turning vehicle to pass me? Highway code and I believe the law says to only overtake when safe to do so, that was not safe.
Let's make the danger more proportional to being hit by a car, what would a strict teacher have done if someone threw a knife or hammer that came close but didn't hit you and you shouted "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!"? after all, if used in the wrong way, a car, a knife and a hammer can kill, a rubber would at worst, knock a tooth or 2 out or give a black eye.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?[/p][/quote]ha! Yeah 1:3 odds ;-)[/p][/quote]I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind. As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you. You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day. Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic. And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on. Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.[/p][/quote]Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos". http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos?shelf_id=1& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; sort=dd&view=0[/p][/quote]Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers. But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender. What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact". The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment. Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.[/p][/quote]This one : http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH cY You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!" The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive. Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him.[/p][/quote]No, I had to slow down and who the hell's Mr Crowe?[/p][/quote]You don't remember Dr Crowe? Perhaps he joined after you left. You had to slow down. That's all. And it warranted foul-mouthed abuse from you that the whole street could hear. All right. Forget Dr Crowe. What would a strict teacher have said?[/p][/quote]Hey, I don't appreciate 1.5 tonnes of metal being driven in such a way near me, besides, they were able to give the group of kids behind me plenty of room, so why weren't they able to wait until AFTER getting past the right turning vehicle to pass me? Highway code and I believe the law says to only overtake when safe to do so, that was not safe. Let's make the danger more proportional to being hit by a car, what would a strict teacher have done if someone threw a knife or hammer that came close but didn't hit you and you shouted "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!"? after all, if used in the wrong way, a car, a knife and a hammer can kill, a rubber would at worst, knock a tooth or 2 out or give a black eye. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

11:47pm Tue 4 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
downfader wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist












2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
ha! Yeah

1:3 odds ;-)
I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind.
As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you.

You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day.

Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic.

And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on.

Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.
Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos".
http://www.youtube.c







om/user/CarpioMonstr







o/videos?shelf_id=1&
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
sort=dd&view=0
Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers.

But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender.

What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact".

The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment.

Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.
Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.
This one :
http://www.youtube.c




om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH




cY
You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!"
The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive.

Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him.
No, I had to slow down and who the hell's Mr Crowe?
You don't remember Dr Crowe? Perhaps he joined after you left.

You had to slow down. That's all. And it warranted foul-mouthed abuse from you that the whole street could hear.

All right. Forget Dr Crowe. What would a strict teacher have said?
Hey, I don't appreciate 1.5 tonnes of metal being driven in such a way near me, besides, they were able to give the group of kids behind me plenty of room, so why weren't they able to wait until AFTER getting past the right turning vehicle to pass me? Highway code and I believe the law says to only overtake when safe to do so, that was not safe.
Let's make the danger more proportional to being hit by a car, what would a strict teacher have done if someone threw a knife or hammer that came close but didn't hit you and you shouted "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!"? after all, if used in the wrong way, a car, a knife and a hammer can kill, a rubber would at worst, knock a tooth or 2 out or give a black eye.
Now we come to intent. If someone threw a knife or a hammer at you, it is more than likely they would be trying to kill you. A car that comes in a bit close is not trying to kill you.
In the video, drivers would be watching the other two kids as well as you, finding it a bit stressful as they were riding on the path and sometimes on the road.
In all you videos where you talk as you ride, you are clearly treating it like a meticulous military operation, and are constantly criticising everyone. never once do you praise. So you are anticipating trouble all the time, and each time you encounter a minor incident, your reaction constitutes a public order offence.
Let's hope you don't, but if you ever get caught out and wind up in court, your videos will d amn you.
How long do you think it will be before you get the attention of some hooligans who will out to get you? Try shouting some abuse at some offender in the middle of Thornhill Estate, or Millbrook!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?[/p][/quote]ha! Yeah 1:3 odds ;-)[/p][/quote]I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind. As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you. You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day. Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic. And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on. Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.[/p][/quote]Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos". http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos?shelf_id=1& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; sort=dd&view=0[/p][/quote]Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers. But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender. What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact". The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment. Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.[/p][/quote]This one : http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH cY You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!" The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive. Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him.[/p][/quote]No, I had to slow down and who the hell's Mr Crowe?[/p][/quote]You don't remember Dr Crowe? Perhaps he joined after you left. You had to slow down. That's all. And it warranted foul-mouthed abuse from you that the whole street could hear. All right. Forget Dr Crowe. What would a strict teacher have said?[/p][/quote]Hey, I don't appreciate 1.5 tonnes of metal being driven in such a way near me, besides, they were able to give the group of kids behind me plenty of room, so why weren't they able to wait until AFTER getting past the right turning vehicle to pass me? Highway code and I believe the law says to only overtake when safe to do so, that was not safe. Let's make the danger more proportional to being hit by a car, what would a strict teacher have done if someone threw a knife or hammer that came close but didn't hit you and you shouted "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!"? after all, if used in the wrong way, a car, a knife and a hammer can kill, a rubber would at worst, knock a tooth or 2 out or give a black eye.[/p][/quote]Now we come to intent. If someone threw a knife or a hammer at you, it is more than likely they would be trying to kill you. A car that comes in a bit close is not trying to kill you. In the video, drivers would be watching the other two kids as well as you, finding it a bit stressful as they were riding on the path and sometimes on the road. In all you videos where you talk as you ride, you are clearly treating it like a meticulous military operation, and are constantly criticising everyone. never once do you praise. So you are anticipating trouble all the time, and each time you encounter a minor incident, your reaction constitutes a public order offence. Let's hope you don't, but if you ever get caught out and wind up in court, your videos will d amn you. How long do you think it will be before you get the attention of some hooligans who will out to get you? Try shouting some abuse at some offender in the middle of Thornhill Estate, or Millbrook! charrlee
  • Score: 0

11:53pm Tue 4 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Arrrh! Looking back over everything I've written, it loks like I'm having a go at you! It's not meant to sound so harsh.
You're a decent bloke, Michael, but the world is wicked. I'm not the only one that worries those vids are going to get you trouble you don't deserve.

Anyway, thank you for taking an interest in my questions. Have a good evening.
Arrrh! Looking back over everything I've written, it loks like I'm having a go at you! It's not meant to sound so harsh. You're a decent bloke, Michael, but the world is wicked. I'm not the only one that worries those vids are going to get you trouble you don't deserve. Anyway, thank you for taking an interest in my questions. Have a good evening. charrlee
  • Score: -2

12:19am Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
downfader wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
downfader wrote:
I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username...

..now taking bets on what the new username will be.

3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist













2:1 InsideBroadmoor
4:3 PreparationH
10:3 Acuvue
What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?
ha! Yeah

1:3 odds ;-)
I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind.
As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you.

You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day.

Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic.

And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on.

Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.
Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos".
http://www.youtube.c








om/user/CarpioMonstr








o/videos?shelf_id=1&
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
sort=dd&view=0
Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers.

But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender.

What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact".

The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment.

Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.
Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.
This one :
http://www.youtube.c





om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH





cY
You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!"
The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive.

Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him.
No, I had to slow down and who the hell's Mr Crowe?
You don't remember Dr Crowe? Perhaps he joined after you left.

You had to slow down. That's all. And it warranted foul-mouthed abuse from you that the whole street could hear.

All right. Forget Dr Crowe. What would a strict teacher have said?
Hey, I don't appreciate 1.5 tonnes of metal being driven in such a way near me, besides, they were able to give the group of kids behind me plenty of room, so why weren't they able to wait until AFTER getting past the right turning vehicle to pass me? Highway code and I believe the law says to only overtake when safe to do so, that was not safe.
Let's make the danger more proportional to being hit by a car, what would a strict teacher have done if someone threw a knife or hammer that came close but didn't hit you and you shouted "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!"? after all, if used in the wrong way, a car, a knife and a hammer can kill, a rubber would at worst, knock a tooth or 2 out or give a black eye.
Now we come to intent. If someone threw a knife or a hammer at you, it is more than likely they would be trying to kill you. A car that comes in a bit close is not trying to kill you.
In the video, drivers would be watching the other two kids as well as you, finding it a bit stressful as they were riding on the path and sometimes on the road.
In all you videos where you talk as you ride, you are clearly treating it like a meticulous military operation, and are constantly criticising everyone. never once do you praise. So you are anticipating trouble all the time, and each time you encounter a minor incident, your reaction constitutes a public order offence.
Let's hope you don't, but if you ever get caught out and wind up in court, your videos will d amn you.
How long do you think it will be before you get the attention of some hooligans who will out to get you? Try shouting some abuse at some offender in the middle of Thornhill Estate, or Millbrook!
Ah, the knife or hammer doesn't necesarily have to be thrown at you to be dangerous, quite often at school people threw such things around just because, not to hurt anyone, you'd still shout the same thing whether they intentionally tried hitting you or not and of course I always anticipate trouble, it's how 2-wheelers stay alive, anyone who uses 2 wheels will tell you that you should ride as if everyone's out to get you but you're wrong that I don't praise anyone, I just don't upload every good bit of driving I see because it would take too long to trim the clips down and upload them all BUT I do upload especially good driving and if they're in a company vehicle, I send an email to the company containing a link to the video and praise the driver while asking that the praise is passed onto the employee in question, such as this driver from First;
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=8JotnZn1J
Uw
Because not only did they perform a perfect overtake by using the full width of the road but they also waited until oncoming traffic had cleared and they could see over the crest of the bridge, I included the fleet number in the video title to make sure the right driver recieved the praise.
As for shouting at someone risking my life in Thornhill or Millbrook, Thornhill isn't likely since I live there and most people there know me or know of me, so it's rare that I get people riving dangerously around me and Millbrook, I have no reason to go near there anyway, not unless there happened to be a group from my fandom that would be meeting up to go bowling.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I think Charrlee/BillyTheKid has some kind of mental health issues... they just wont quit with the essays, leave then comeback as another username... ..now taking bets on what the new username will be. 3:1 TheLonelyProtagonist 2:1 InsideBroadmoor 4:3 PreparationH 10:3 Acuvue[/p][/quote]What are the odds on "Anne Onimous"?[/p][/quote]ha! Yeah 1:3 odds ;-)[/p][/quote]I thought Gingercyclist was going to point out how to access his "snitch" movies, but never mind. As I'm here, just wondered if you realised that being fixated on a single idea, namely that anyone who opposes you, Cook, must be Billy The Kid, is indicative of paranoia. If you entertain the idea that your suspicions might be wrong, there could be some hope of recovery for you. You assert that you are a philosopher, yet you appear to spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping in chat rooms each day. Does it not ever bother you that you might, after all, just be some boy on a bike? Has the internet perhaps given you a false impression as to your importance? Remembering back some years now, it must be quite embarrassing for someone like you, with your ego and self-belief in orbit, to find yourself having the micky taken by half-a-dozen old pensioners sat round a computer that they barely understand ! (Far more face-saving to insist it was some lonely psycho troll singling you out for persecution!) But you had it coming. You asked for it with your pompous, arrogant put downs of anyone who was not a cycling and health fanatic. And Billy, Jayne and the others did try to make peace with you on a number of occasions, but you wouldn't have it. This could have all been settled, but you and Simmons and your protégé Ginger had to keep on. Why do you imagine I will go away and come back as a different user? I haven't used abusive language, harassed other forum users, or broken any rules. I know the others did, but I am not them. Do you intend to bully those administrators into banning me for some reason? I'm not interested in arguing with. I don't mind talking to Gingercyclist because he does conduct himself in an adult fashion.[/p][/quote]Copy and paste this into your browser's address bar to see my videos that are NOT "snitch videos". http://www.youtube.c om/user/CarpioMonstr o/videos?shelf_id=1& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; sort=dd&view=0[/p][/quote]Ginger. I've watched some of the videos, and I feel very strongly for any cyclist who is summerarily disregarded by selfish, arrogant drivers. I can sympathise very much with your desire to expose these bad drivers. But I look at what you've got on film. Because you are facing forwards, the camera only picks up the car after they have done something stupid - you don't actually see an offence committed. Next, we hear you raging and swearing at the perceived offender. What you've actually got, Ginger, is dozens of videos of you committing public order offences. There is so much clear evidence of you breaking the law, but nothing at all showing the motorists actually doing something because the camera picks up the offence "after the fact". The only thing I can think of is you working with another cyclist who also carries a camera. However, there is the problem that you might be accused of entrapment. Just wondered what you thought. I am trying to see it sympathetically from your point of view.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find that a LOT of them are people on the phone,jumping red lights , passing too close to me and pulling out on me, so most, if not all, have the offence in view of the cameras and any officer with a shred common sense, would see that a lot of the shouting and swearing, is covered as an exeption under the Public Order Act as reasonable conduct due to feeling endangered.[/p][/quote]This one : http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=KK1j-7RJH cY You literally scream out, "Oy! F**king move over, you tw*t!" The car cut in a bit close, but it did not cause you to swerve or fall off. I would say you over-reacted, and your anger was excessive. Tell me something. If someone had thrown an eraser across the classroom at Woodlands, and it came close but missed you, and you yelled out, "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!" What would Mr Crowe have said? I can always phone Simon and ask him.[/p][/quote]No, I had to slow down and who the hell's Mr Crowe?[/p][/quote]You don't remember Dr Crowe? Perhaps he joined after you left. You had to slow down. That's all. And it warranted foul-mouthed abuse from you that the whole street could hear. All right. Forget Dr Crowe. What would a strict teacher have said?[/p][/quote]Hey, I don't appreciate 1.5 tonnes of metal being driven in such a way near me, besides, they were able to give the group of kids behind me plenty of room, so why weren't they able to wait until AFTER getting past the right turning vehicle to pass me? Highway code and I believe the law says to only overtake when safe to do so, that was not safe. Let's make the danger more proportional to being hit by a car, what would a strict teacher have done if someone threw a knife or hammer that came close but didn't hit you and you shouted "You tw*t! That nearly f**king hit me!"? after all, if used in the wrong way, a car, a knife and a hammer can kill, a rubber would at worst, knock a tooth or 2 out or give a black eye.[/p][/quote]Now we come to intent. If someone threw a knife or a hammer at you, it is more than likely they would be trying to kill you. A car that comes in a bit close is not trying to kill you. In the video, drivers would be watching the other two kids as well as you, finding it a bit stressful as they were riding on the path and sometimes on the road. In all you videos where you talk as you ride, you are clearly treating it like a meticulous military operation, and are constantly criticising everyone. never once do you praise. So you are anticipating trouble all the time, and each time you encounter a minor incident, your reaction constitutes a public order offence. Let's hope you don't, but if you ever get caught out and wind up in court, your videos will d amn you. How long do you think it will be before you get the attention of some hooligans who will out to get you? Try shouting some abuse at some offender in the middle of Thornhill Estate, or Millbrook![/p][/quote]Ah, the knife or hammer doesn't necesarily have to be thrown at you to be dangerous, quite often at school people threw such things around just because, not to hurt anyone, you'd still shout the same thing whether they intentionally tried hitting you or not and of course I always anticipate trouble, it's how 2-wheelers stay alive, anyone who uses 2 wheels will tell you that you should ride as if everyone's out to get you but you're wrong that I don't praise anyone, I just don't upload every good bit of driving I see because it would take too long to trim the clips down and upload them all BUT I do upload especially good driving and if they're in a company vehicle, I send an email to the company containing a link to the video and praise the driver while asking that the praise is passed onto the employee in question, such as this driver from First; http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=8JotnZn1J Uw Because not only did they perform a perfect overtake by using the full width of the road but they also waited until oncoming traffic had cleared and they could see over the crest of the bridge, I included the fleet number in the video title to make sure the right driver recieved the praise. As for shouting at someone risking my life in Thornhill or Millbrook, Thornhill isn't likely since I live there and most people there know me or know of me, so it's rare that I get people riving dangerously around me and Millbrook, I have no reason to go near there anyway, not unless there happened to be a group from my fandom that would be meeting up to go bowling. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:51am Wed 5 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Grrrrrr!! You Aspies and taking everything literally! Sorry, Mike, I just keep forgetting.
Just saying be careful, because there are some 'orrible people out there who will not treat you fairly if you cross them.
Grrrrrr!! You Aspies and taking everything literally! Sorry, Mike, I just keep forgetting. Just saying be careful, because there are some 'orrible people out there who will not treat you fairly if you cross them. charrlee
  • Score: -2

1:07am Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Grrrrrr!! You Aspies and taking everything literally! Sorry, Mike, I just keep forgetting.
Just saying be careful, because there are some 'orrible people out there who will not treat you fairly if you cross them.
I know, that's why I keep my helmet cam running for a short period after walking away from my bike(for the very reason you mentioned), after locking it up securely with a chain and padlock meant for locking motorcycles, a gold rated cable lock(both of which saved my previous bike AND a friends bike) and a small combi lock with a built in alarm, I've even got into the habit of leaving the camera running while I walk to my front door because one of my next door neighbours is a right piece of work, convicted of child abuse and witnessed him hitting his partner, was also driving while disqualified at one point.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Grrrrrr!! You Aspies and taking everything literally! Sorry, Mike, I just keep forgetting. Just saying be careful, because there are some 'orrible people out there who will not treat you fairly if you cross them.[/p][/quote]I know, that's why I keep my helmet cam running for a short period after walking away from my bike(for the very reason you mentioned), after locking it up securely with a chain and padlock meant for locking motorcycles, a gold rated cable lock(both of which saved my previous bike AND a friends bike) and a small combi lock with a built in alarm, I've even got into the habit of leaving the camera running while I walk to my front door because one of my next door neighbours is a right piece of work, convicted of child abuse and witnessed him hitting his partner, was also driving while disqualified at one point. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

8:02pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

The good news.. Southampton Council is committed to delivering a cut in car use and a real terms cut in carbon emissions from transport.?


That not a good sign.. Southampton Council, and MPs Denham and Whitehead have been saying that long before the EU air pollution fines which date back to 2010.



REVEALED: OUR SIX POLLUTION HOT SPOTS.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

CHOKING air pollution in Southampton has risen dramatically in the last year with worrying health implications. Sarah Gomme reports.

THEY are the places where fresh air has become a rare commodity. Places where poisonous fumes belch from endless streams of cars.

And places which illustrate the chronic man-made damage being inflicted on our fragile environment. In short, these areas are now among the worst pollution black spots in our community.

And it's here where the global warming, which is steadily suffocating the planet, has combined with traffic gridlock to produce a disturbing chemical cocktail.

REDBRIDGE ROAD, MILLBROOK ROAD, BEVOIS VALLEY ROAD AND BITTERNE ROAD IN SOUTHAMPTON, ALONG WITH LYNDHURST HIGH STREET AND WINCHESTER CITY CENTRE ARE THE WORST HIT, ACCORDING TO SIMON HARTILL AT SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.

"It's estimated that air pollution causes up to 24,000 premature deaths every year in the UK, mainly from ozone particles and sulphur dioxide.

By 2025, it's estimated there will be 50 million cars on Britain's roads, compared to just 23 million in 1989.

-


http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/archive/2004/
08/04/5568025.Reveal
ed__Our_six_pollutio
n_hot_spots/?ref=arc




,,
The good news.. Southampton Council is committed to delivering a cut in car use and a real terms cut in carbon emissions from transport.? That not a good sign.. Southampton Council, and MPs Denham and Whitehead have been saying that long before the EU air pollution fines which date back to 2010. REVEALED: OUR SIX POLLUTION HOT SPOTS. Wednesday, 4 August 2004. CHOKING air pollution in Southampton has risen dramatically in the last year with worrying health implications. Sarah Gomme reports. THEY are the places where fresh air has become a rare commodity. Places where poisonous fumes belch from endless streams of cars. And places which illustrate the chronic man-made damage being inflicted on our fragile environment. In short, these areas are now among the worst pollution black spots in our community. And it's here where the global warming, which is steadily suffocating the planet, has combined with traffic gridlock to produce a disturbing chemical cocktail. REDBRIDGE ROAD, MILLBROOK ROAD, BEVOIS VALLEY ROAD AND BITTERNE ROAD IN SOUTHAMPTON, ALONG WITH LYNDHURST HIGH STREET AND WINCHESTER CITY CENTRE ARE THE WORST HIT, ACCORDING TO SIMON HARTILL AT SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. "It's estimated that air pollution causes up to 24,000 premature deaths every year in the UK, mainly from ozone particles and sulphur dioxide. By 2025, it's estimated there will be 50 million cars on Britain's roads, compared to just 23 million in 1989. - http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/archive/2004/ 08/04/5568025.Reveal ed__Our_six_pollutio n_hot_spots/?ref=arc ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

The good news.. Southampton Council is committed to delivering a cut in car use and a real terms cut in carbon emissions from transport.?


That's not a good sign.. Southampton Council, MPs Denham and Whitehead have been saying that long before the EU air pollution fines which date back to 2010.



REVEALED: OUR SIX POLLUTION HOT SPOTS.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

CHOKING air pollution in Southampton has risen dramatically in the last year with worrying health implications. Sarah Gomme reports.

THEY are the places where fresh air has become a rare commodity. Places where poisonous fumes belch from endless streams of cars.

And places which illustrate the chronic man-made damage being inflicted on our fragile environment. In short, these areas are now among the worst pollution black spots in our community.

And it's here where the global warming, which is steadily suffocating the planet, has combined with traffic gridlock to produce a disturbing chemical cocktail.

REDBRIDGE ROAD, MILLBROOK ROAD, BEVOIS VALLEY ROAD AND BITTERNE ROAD IN SOUTHAMPTON, ALONG WITH LYNDHURST HIGH STREET AND WINCHESTER CITY CENTRE ARE THE WORST HIT, ACCORDING TO SIMON HARTILL AT SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.

"It's estimated that air pollution causes up to 24,000 premature deaths every year in the UK, mainly from ozone particles and sulphur dioxide.

By 2025, it's estimated there will be 50 million cars on Britain's roads, compared to just 23 million in 1989.

-


http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/archive/2004/
08/04/5568025.Reveal
ed__Our_six_pollutio
n_hot_spots/?ref=arc





,,
The good news.. Southampton Council is committed to delivering a cut in car use and a real terms cut in carbon emissions from transport.? That's not a good sign.. Southampton Council, MPs Denham and Whitehead have been saying that long before the EU air pollution fines which date back to 2010. REVEALED: OUR SIX POLLUTION HOT SPOTS. Wednesday, 4 August 2004. CHOKING air pollution in Southampton has risen dramatically in the last year with worrying health implications. Sarah Gomme reports. THEY are the places where fresh air has become a rare commodity. Places where poisonous fumes belch from endless streams of cars. And places which illustrate the chronic man-made damage being inflicted on our fragile environment. In short, these areas are now among the worst pollution black spots in our community. And it's here where the global warming, which is steadily suffocating the planet, has combined with traffic gridlock to produce a disturbing chemical cocktail. REDBRIDGE ROAD, MILLBROOK ROAD, BEVOIS VALLEY ROAD AND BITTERNE ROAD IN SOUTHAMPTON, ALONG WITH LYNDHURST HIGH STREET AND WINCHESTER CITY CENTRE ARE THE WORST HIT, ACCORDING TO SIMON HARTILL AT SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. "It's estimated that air pollution causes up to 24,000 premature deaths every year in the UK, mainly from ozone particles and sulphur dioxide. By 2025, it's estimated there will be 50 million cars on Britain's roads, compared to just 23 million in 1989. - http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/archive/2004/ 08/04/5568025.Reveal ed__Our_six_pollutio n_hot_spots/?ref=arc ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

9:22pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
The good news.. Southampton Council is committed to delivering a cut in car use and a real terms cut in carbon emissions from transport.?


That's not a good sign.. Southampton Council, MPs Denham and Whitehead have been saying that long before the EU air pollution fines which date back to 2010.



REVEALED: OUR SIX POLLUTION HOT SPOTS.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

CHOKING air pollution in Southampton has risen dramatically in the last year with worrying health implications. Sarah Gomme reports.

THEY are the places where fresh air has become a rare commodity. Places where poisonous fumes belch from endless streams of cars.

And places which illustrate the chronic man-made damage being inflicted on our fragile environment. In short, these areas are now among the worst pollution black spots in our community.

And it's here where the global warming, which is steadily suffocating the planet, has combined with traffic gridlock to produce a disturbing chemical cocktail.

REDBRIDGE ROAD, MILLBROOK ROAD, BEVOIS VALLEY ROAD AND BITTERNE ROAD IN SOUTHAMPTON, ALONG WITH LYNDHURST HIGH STREET AND WINCHESTER CITY CENTRE ARE THE WORST HIT, ACCORDING TO SIMON HARTILL AT SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.

"It's estimated that air pollution causes up to 24,000 premature deaths every year in the UK, mainly from ozone particles and sulphur dioxide.

By 2025, it's estimated there will be 50 million cars on Britain's roads, compared to just 23 million in 1989.

-


http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/archive/2004/

08/04/5568025.Reveal

ed__Our_six_pollutio

n_hot_spots/?ref=arc






,,
Southampton's Gridlock Armageddon is only six years way


We're heading for Gridlock Armageddon given outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities and the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 from 31 million in 2007


So what to do between now and Gridlock Armageddon?

For a starter there's the UKs £300 million EU air pollution fine to pay off, that dates back to 2010 and there's more to follow, Southampton will have to introduce a Congestion come an Air Pollution charge... not so good.

Seriously.. why can't the members of Southampton Council lead by example and dump their cars ( this is gridlock, too late for eco cars), only using public transport and/or riding bikes.?



,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The good news.. Southampton Council is committed to delivering a cut in car use and a real terms cut in carbon emissions from transport.? That's not a good sign.. Southampton Council, MPs Denham and Whitehead have been saying that long before the EU air pollution fines which date back to 2010. REVEALED: OUR SIX POLLUTION HOT SPOTS. Wednesday, 4 August 2004. CHOKING air pollution in Southampton has risen dramatically in the last year with worrying health implications. Sarah Gomme reports. THEY are the places where fresh air has become a rare commodity. Places where poisonous fumes belch from endless streams of cars. And places which illustrate the chronic man-made damage being inflicted on our fragile environment. In short, these areas are now among the worst pollution black spots in our community. And it's here where the global warming, which is steadily suffocating the planet, has combined with traffic gridlock to produce a disturbing chemical cocktail. REDBRIDGE ROAD, MILLBROOK ROAD, BEVOIS VALLEY ROAD AND BITTERNE ROAD IN SOUTHAMPTON, ALONG WITH LYNDHURST HIGH STREET AND WINCHESTER CITY CENTRE ARE THE WORST HIT, ACCORDING TO SIMON HARTILL AT SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. "It's estimated that air pollution causes up to 24,000 premature deaths every year in the UK, mainly from ozone particles and sulphur dioxide. By 2025, it's estimated there will be 50 million cars on Britain's roads, compared to just 23 million in 1989. - http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/archive/2004/ 08/04/5568025.Reveal ed__Our_six_pollutio n_hot_spots/?ref=arc ,,[/p][/quote]Southampton's Gridlock Armageddon is only six years way We're heading for Gridlock Armageddon given outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities and the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 from 31 million in 2007 So what to do between now and Gridlock Armageddon? For a starter there's the UKs £300 million EU air pollution fine to pay off, that dates back to 2010 and there's more to follow, Southampton will have to introduce a Congestion come an Air Pollution charge... not so good. Seriously.. why can't the members of Southampton Council lead by example and dump their cars ( this is gridlock, too late for eco cars), only using public transport and/or riding bikes.? ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

10:07am Sat 8 Mar 14

DanWeston says...

theresasurprise wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world
You are talking out of your backside
Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move.
I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..
You are right about the pedestrian problems, but wrong entirely about the causes.

The reality is that cyclists are a small problem.
58% of pedestrians killed or serious injuries on the pavement are hit by cars, 20% by buses, and only 2% by cylists

I have no problem with promoting pedestrian safety,but as before....lets tackle ALL the bad road users

How many of those slating cyclists for being on the pavement would support a clampdown on ALL pavement misuse especially the far more dangerous, and common illegal use by motor vehicles.


It always seems that the enthusiasm wanes when enforcing the laws for motoring becomes part of the equation
[quote][p][bold]theresasurprise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world[/p][/quote]You are talking out of your backside[/p][/quote]Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move. I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..[/p][/quote]You are right about the pedestrian problems, but wrong entirely about the causes. The reality is that cyclists are a small problem. 58% of pedestrians killed or serious injuries on the pavement are hit by cars, 20% by buses, and only 2% by cylists I have no problem with promoting pedestrian safety,but as before....lets tackle ALL the bad road users How many of those slating cyclists for being on the pavement would support a clampdown on ALL pavement misuse especially the far more dangerous, and common illegal use by motor vehicles. It always seems that the enthusiasm wanes when enforcing the laws for motoring becomes part of the equation DanWeston
  • Score: 0

10:08am Sat 8 Mar 14

DanWeston says...

theresasurprise wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world
You are talking out of your backside
Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move.
I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..
You are right about the pedestrian problems, but wrong entirely about the causes.

The reality is that cyclists are a small problem.
58% of pedestrians killed or serious injuries on the pavement are hit by cars, 20% by buses, and only 2% by cylists

I have no problem with promoting pedestrian safety,but as before....lets tackle ALL the bad road users

How many of those slating cyclists for being on the pavement would support a clampdown on ALL pavement misuse especially the far more dangerous, and common illegal use by motor vehicles.


It always seems that the enthusiasm wanes when enforcing the laws for motoring becomes part of the equation
[quote][p][bold]theresasurprise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world[/p][/quote]You are talking out of your backside[/p][/quote]Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move. I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..[/p][/quote]You are right about the pedestrian problems, but wrong entirely about the causes. The reality is that cyclists are a small problem. 58% of pedestrians killed or serious injuries on the pavement are hit by cars, 20% by buses, and only 2% by cylists I have no problem with promoting pedestrian safety,but as before....lets tackle ALL the bad road users How many of those slating cyclists for being on the pavement would support a clampdown on ALL pavement misuse especially the far more dangerous, and common illegal use by motor vehicles. It always seems that the enthusiasm wanes when enforcing the laws for motoring becomes part of the equation DanWeston
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

DanWeston wrote:
theresasurprise wrote:
KSO16R wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world
You are talking out of your backside
Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move.
I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..
You are right about the pedestrian problems, but wrong entirely about the causes.

The reality is that cyclists are a small problem.
58% of pedestrians killed or serious injuries on the pavement are hit by cars, 20% by buses, and only 2% by cylists

I have no problem with promoting pedestrian safety,but as before....lets tackle ALL the bad road users

How many of those slating cyclists for being on the pavement would support a clampdown on ALL pavement misuse especially the far more dangerous, and common illegal use by motor vehicles.


It always seems that the enthusiasm wanes when enforcing the laws for motoring becomes part of the equation
Indeed, only allowed to drive across it to access your property.
[quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theresasurprise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Pedestrians don't help their cause by NOT LOOKING both ways when trying to cross busy roads. Seen this so much its still scary and a large percent aren't on their phones they just seem off in their own little world[/p][/quote]You are talking out of your backside[/p][/quote]Half time the pedestrian has to be careful when walking on the pavement as the cyclist tends to wiz past them ....then curses if they don't move. I don't drive but the cyclists should also pay to use the roads and it should be law that they should use lights and reflective / proctective garments and fined if they dont. The amount of idiots that I have seen without either!! Common sense really don't bless these people but its the ones that do use the proper gear that seem to be the victims..[/p][/quote]You are right about the pedestrian problems, but wrong entirely about the causes. The reality is that cyclists are a small problem. 58% of pedestrians killed or serious injuries on the pavement are hit by cars, 20% by buses, and only 2% by cylists I have no problem with promoting pedestrian safety,but as before....lets tackle ALL the bad road users How many of those slating cyclists for being on the pavement would support a clampdown on ALL pavement misuse especially the far more dangerous, and common illegal use by motor vehicles. It always seems that the enthusiasm wanes when enforcing the laws for motoring becomes part of the equation[/p][/quote]Indeed, only allowed to drive across it to access your property. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:06pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
The good news.. Southampton Council is committed to delivering a cut in car use and a real terms cut in carbon emissions from transport.?


That's not a good sign.. Southampton Council, MPs Denham and Whitehead have been saying that long before the EU air pollution fines which date back to 2010.



REVEALED: OUR SIX POLLUTION HOT SPOTS.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

CHOKING air pollution in Southampton has risen dramatically in the last year with worrying health implications. Sarah Gomme reports.

THEY are the places where fresh air has become a rare commodity. Places where poisonous fumes belch from endless streams of cars.

And places which illustrate the chronic man-made damage being inflicted on our fragile environment. In short, these areas are now among the worst pollution black spots in our community.

And it's here where the global warming, which is steadily suffocating the planet, has combined with traffic gridlock to produce a disturbing chemical cocktail.

REDBRIDGE ROAD, MILLBROOK ROAD, BEVOIS VALLEY ROAD AND BITTERNE ROAD IN SOUTHAMPTON, ALONG WITH LYNDHURST HIGH STREET AND WINCHESTER CITY CENTRE ARE THE WORST HIT, ACCORDING TO SIMON HARTILL AT SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.

"It's estimated that air pollution causes up to 24,000 premature deaths every year in the UK, mainly from ozone particles and sulphur dioxide.

By 2025, it's estimated there will be 50 million cars on Britain's roads, compared to just 23 million in 1989.

-


http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/archive/2004/


08/04/5568025.Reveal


ed__Our_six_pollutio


n_hot_spots/?ref=arc







,,
Southampton's Gridlock Armageddon is only six years way


We're heading for Gridlock Armageddon given outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities and the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 from 31 million in 2007


So what to do between now and Gridlock Armageddon?

For a starter there's the UKs £300 million EU air pollution fine to pay off, that dates back to 2010 and there's more to follow, Southampton will have to introduce a Congestion come an Air Pollution charge... not so good.

Seriously.. why can't the members of Southampton Council lead by example and dump their cars ( this is gridlock, too late for eco cars), only using public transport and/or riding bikes.?



,,
Green MEP Keith Taylor says.. My vision for cities like Southampton would see safety as the number one priority. That means 20mph zones across our city centres, improved safety features in all cars (something I’ve worked on in the European Parliament) and proper space given to pedestrians and cyclists.


Yeah, bring on..


The stat's speak for themselves, vehicle driver fatality rate peaked in 1966 and has fallen to its lowest ever in 2012, while cyclist/pedestrian fatalities have been heading in an opposite upward direction.

Add to that.. Surveys and insurance compensation claims estimate over 800,000 fatal, seriously and slightly injured road casualties each year

That tells me.. like never before motorists are surviving serious accidents thanks to (among other things) cars with better built-in safety features, YET NO MATTER HOW VISIBLE CYCLIST MAKE THEMSELVES THEY ARE AS VULNERABLE AS EVER, PROBABLY MORE SO.. TRAGIC

As I see it.. we have to do more to identify the drivers ( many of whom must be serious accident survivors ) who nod off, don't concentrate on the road ahead or as below lunatics ..


GOSPORT CRASH DEATHS: HOW 'BLACK BOX' NETTED SAMUEL ETHERINGTON.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-ham
pshire-25928359


Car insurance companies can play a big roll in improving matters.. all serious injury claims should come with a proviso that ''Black Boxes' are fitted and cyclist/pedestrian detection systems install.

As a cyclist/pedestrian I would also like to see installed ON ALL VEHICLES VISIBLE WARNINGS OF AN IMPENDING ACCIDENT.. like (not holding my breath) flashing lights and sirens triggered when a driver nods off or suffers a lapse in concentration.




,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The good news.. Southampton Council is committed to delivering a cut in car use and a real terms cut in carbon emissions from transport.? That's not a good sign.. Southampton Council, MPs Denham and Whitehead have been saying that long before the EU air pollution fines which date back to 2010. REVEALED: OUR SIX POLLUTION HOT SPOTS. Wednesday, 4 August 2004. CHOKING air pollution in Southampton has risen dramatically in the last year with worrying health implications. Sarah Gomme reports. THEY are the places where fresh air has become a rare commodity. Places where poisonous fumes belch from endless streams of cars. And places which illustrate the chronic man-made damage being inflicted on our fragile environment. In short, these areas are now among the worst pollution black spots in our community. And it's here where the global warming, which is steadily suffocating the planet, has combined with traffic gridlock to produce a disturbing chemical cocktail. REDBRIDGE ROAD, MILLBROOK ROAD, BEVOIS VALLEY ROAD AND BITTERNE ROAD IN SOUTHAMPTON, ALONG WITH LYNDHURST HIGH STREET AND WINCHESTER CITY CENTRE ARE THE WORST HIT, ACCORDING TO SIMON HARTILL AT SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. "It's estimated that air pollution causes up to 24,000 premature deaths every year in the UK, mainly from ozone particles and sulphur dioxide. By 2025, it's estimated there will be 50 million cars on Britain's roads, compared to just 23 million in 1989. - http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/archive/2004/ 08/04/5568025.Reveal ed__Our_six_pollutio n_hot_spots/?ref=arc ,,[/p][/quote]Southampton's Gridlock Armageddon is only six years way We're heading for Gridlock Armageddon given outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities and the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 from 31 million in 2007 So what to do between now and Gridlock Armageddon? For a starter there's the UKs £300 million EU air pollution fine to pay off, that dates back to 2010 and there's more to follow, Southampton will have to introduce a Congestion come an Air Pollution charge... not so good. Seriously.. why can't the members of Southampton Council lead by example and dump their cars ( this is gridlock, too late for eco cars), only using public transport and/or riding bikes.? ,,[/p][/quote]Green MEP Keith Taylor says.. My vision for cities like Southampton would see safety as the number one priority. That means 20mph zones across our city centres, improved safety features in all cars (something I’ve worked on in the European Parliament) and proper space given to pedestrians and cyclists. Yeah, bring on.. The stat's speak for themselves, vehicle driver fatality rate peaked in 1966 and has fallen to its lowest ever in 2012, while cyclist/pedestrian fatalities have been heading in an opposite upward direction. Add to that.. Surveys and insurance compensation claims estimate over 800,000 fatal, seriously and slightly injured road casualties each year That tells me.. like never before motorists are surviving serious accidents thanks to (among other things) cars with better built-in safety features, YET NO MATTER HOW VISIBLE CYCLIST MAKE THEMSELVES THEY ARE AS VULNERABLE AS EVER, PROBABLY MORE SO.. TRAGIC As I see it.. we have to do more to identify the drivers ( many of whom must be serious accident survivors ) who nod off, don't concentrate on the road ahead or as below lunatics .. GOSPORT CRASH DEATHS: HOW 'BLACK BOX' NETTED SAMUEL ETHERINGTON. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-ham pshire-25928359 Car insurance companies can play a big roll in improving matters.. all serious injury claims should come with a proviso that ''Black Boxes' are fitted and cyclist/pedestrian detection systems install. As a cyclist/pedestrian I would also like to see installed ON ALL VEHICLES VISIBLE WARNINGS OF AN IMPENDING ACCIDENT.. like (not holding my breath) flashing lights and sirens triggered when a driver nods off or suffers a lapse in concentration. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name