Cyclists shouldn’t be on the road when they pay no tax

Daily Echo: Cyclists shouldn’t be on the road when they pay no tax Cyclists shouldn’t be on the road when they pay no tax

I’D like to respond to the letter by Hugo Petty.

What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?

And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?

I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?

I’m sorry, and I know not every cyclist is to blame, but you always remember the minority.

ROSS ANSELL, Southampton.

Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. The road network is paid for by general taxation and not by Vehicle Excise Duty (the tax disc in a car windscreen) which relates to the size of an engine and the amount of pollution it produces. Legally, cyclists and pedestrians have as much right to the roads as drivers.

Comments (131)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:04pm Wed 5 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?! camerajuan
  • Score: 11

1:09pm Wed 5 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

There is so much wrong in this letter.

Perhaps Ross Ansell would have been better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
There is so much wrong in this letter. Perhaps Ross Ansell would have been better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. From the sidelines
  • Score: 11

2:05pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Linesman says...

The Editor's note should also have reminded cyclists that as well as having a legal right to use the roads as motorists and pedestrians have, they are also legally obliged to obey the rules associated with using the road.
The Editor's note should also have reminded cyclists that as well as having a legal right to use the roads as motorists and pedestrians have, they are also legally obliged to obey the rules associated with using the road. Linesman
  • Score: 13

2:07pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

Road tax doesn't even EXIST and hasn't done since bloody 1937 i think some people need re educatiing
Road tax doesn't even EXIST and hasn't done since bloody 1937 i think some people need re educatiing Mary80
  • Score: 2

2:08pm Wed 5 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

Linesman wrote:
The Editor's note should also have reminded cyclists that as well as having a legal right to use the roads as motorists and pedestrians have, they are also legally obliged to obey the rules associated with using the road.
Indeed. However, the author of this letter appears to object to cyclists following the rules of the road, viz. using the carriageway, positioning and turning right.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The Editor's note should also have reminded cyclists that as well as having a legal right to use the roads as motorists and pedestrians have, they are also legally obliged to obey the rules associated with using the road.[/p][/quote]Indeed. However, the author of this letter appears to object to cyclists following the rules of the road, viz. using the carriageway, positioning and turning right. From the sidelines
  • Score: 17

2:10pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -16

2:13pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -13

2:18pm Wed 5 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
Your morals are not encoded in law.

- pay proper insurance premiums
Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies.

- registered and identifiable
No legal requirement, nor need for this.

- qualified enough
The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications.

- old enough
What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger?

- healthy enough
Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar?

- tested and found to be roadworthy
Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need.

These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]Your morals are not encoded in law. - pay proper insurance premiums Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies. - registered and identifiable No legal requirement, nor need for this. - qualified enough The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications. - old enough What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger? - healthy enough Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar? - tested and found to be roadworthy Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need. These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder. From the sidelines
  • Score: 10

2:29pm Wed 5 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

I pay my share of taxes thanks, so does mean all the cars with free VED because of their low emissions have no right on the road either? What a fool.
I pay my share of taxes thanks, so does mean all the cars with free VED because of their low emissions have no right on the road either? What a fool. bigfella777
  • Score: 7

2:31pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

From the sidelines wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
Your morals are not encoded in law.

- pay proper insurance premiums
Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies.

- registered and identifiable
No legal requirement, nor need for this.

- qualified enough
The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications.

- old enough
What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger?

- healthy enough
Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar?

- tested and found to be roadworthy
Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need.

These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.
Ha ha ha ha!! :0)
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]Your morals are not encoded in law. - pay proper insurance premiums Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies. - registered and identifiable No legal requirement, nor need for this. - qualified enough The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications. - old enough What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger? - healthy enough Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar? - tested and found to be roadworthy Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need. These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha ha!! :0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 3

3:07pm Wed 5 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
Your morals are not encoded in law.

- pay proper insurance premiums
Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies.

- registered and identifiable
No legal requirement, nor need for this.

- qualified enough
The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications.

- old enough
What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger?

- healthy enough
Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar?

- tested and found to be roadworthy
Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need.

These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.
Ha ha ha ha!! :0)
The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really!
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]Your morals are not encoded in law. - pay proper insurance premiums Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies. - registered and identifiable No legal requirement, nor need for this. - qualified enough The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications. - old enough What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger? - healthy enough Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar? - tested and found to be roadworthy Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need. These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha ha!! :0)[/p][/quote]The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really! camerajuan
  • Score: -5

3:18pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
Your morals are not encoded in law.

- pay proper insurance premiums
Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies.

- registered and identifiable
No legal requirement, nor need for this.

- qualified enough
The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications.

- old enough
What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger?

- healthy enough
Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar?

- tested and found to be roadworthy
Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need.

These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.
Ha ha ha ha!! :0)
The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really!
Everyone else is laughing at him, yet he thinks they're laughing with him.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]Your morals are not encoded in law. - pay proper insurance premiums Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies. - registered and identifiable No legal requirement, nor need for this. - qualified enough The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications. - old enough What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger? - healthy enough Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar? - tested and found to be roadworthy Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need. These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha ha!! :0)[/p][/quote]The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really![/p][/quote]Everyone else is laughing at him, yet he thinks they're laughing with him. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -5

3:23pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
Your morals are not encoded in law.

- pay proper insurance premiums
Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies.

- registered and identifiable
No legal requirement, nor need for this.

- qualified enough
The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications.

- old enough
What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger?

- healthy enough
Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar?

- tested and found to be roadworthy
Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need.

These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.
Ha ha ha ha!! :0)
The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really!
Because you all keep pumping out the same spurious and dubious arguments, everytime someone dares to suggest that you all might just be getting a free ride.
Is it a guilt complex,that you feel you have to justify your non contributary efforts towards today's economy in this time of recession, in respect of your chosen mode of transport,when everybody else is paying through the nose.?
Like I said in my first post,before I was incorrectly corrected,legally and technically,all you say may very well be right,that doesn't make it morally right though...slavery was legal once upon a time!
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]Your morals are not encoded in law. - pay proper insurance premiums Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies. - registered and identifiable No legal requirement, nor need for this. - qualified enough The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications. - old enough What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger? - healthy enough Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar? - tested and found to be roadworthy Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need. These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha ha!! :0)[/p][/quote]The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really![/p][/quote]Because you all keep pumping out the same spurious and dubious arguments, everytime someone dares to suggest that you all might just be getting a free ride. Is it a guilt complex,that you feel you have to justify your non contributary efforts towards today's economy in this time of recession, in respect of your chosen mode of transport,when everybody else is paying through the nose.? Like I said in my first post,before I was incorrectly corrected,legally and technically,all you say may very well be right,that doesn't make it morally right though...slavery was legal once upon a time! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 1

3:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
Your morals are not encoded in law.

- pay proper insurance premiums
Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies.

- registered and identifiable
No legal requirement, nor need for this.

- qualified enough
The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications.

- old enough
What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger?

- healthy enough
Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar?

- tested and found to be roadworthy
Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need.

These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.
Ha ha ha ha!! :0)
The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really!
Because you all keep pumping out the same spurious and dubious arguments, everytime someone dares to suggest that you all might just be getting a free ride.
Is it a guilt complex,that you feel you have to justify your non contributary efforts towards today's economy in this time of recession, in respect of your chosen mode of transport,when everybody else is paying through the nose.?
Like I said in my first post,before I was incorrectly corrected,legally and technically,all you say may very well be right,that doesn't make it morally right though...slavery was legal once upon a time!
But vehicle excise duty and the other things most motorists(as some don't pay VED either) pay for don't contribute to the roads either, so why should we make extra contributions on top of things like counci tax when motorists don't either?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]Your morals are not encoded in law. - pay proper insurance premiums Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies. - registered and identifiable No legal requirement, nor need for this. - qualified enough The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications. - old enough What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger? - healthy enough Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar? - tested and found to be roadworthy Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need. These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha ha!! :0)[/p][/quote]The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really![/p][/quote]Because you all keep pumping out the same spurious and dubious arguments, everytime someone dares to suggest that you all might just be getting a free ride. Is it a guilt complex,that you feel you have to justify your non contributary efforts towards today's economy in this time of recession, in respect of your chosen mode of transport,when everybody else is paying through the nose.? Like I said in my first post,before I was incorrectly corrected,legally and technically,all you say may very well be right,that doesn't make it morally right though...slavery was legal once upon a time![/p][/quote]But vehicle excise duty and the other things most motorists(as some don't pay VED either) pay for don't contribute to the roads either, so why should we make extra contributions on top of things like counci tax when motorists don't either? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
Your morals are not encoded in law.

- pay proper insurance premiums
Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies.

- registered and identifiable
No legal requirement, nor need for this.

- qualified enough
The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications.

- old enough
What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger?

- healthy enough
Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar?

- tested and found to be roadworthy
Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need.

These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.
Ha ha ha ha!! :0)
The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really!
Because you all keep pumping out the same spurious and dubious arguments, everytime someone dares to suggest that you all might just be getting a free ride.
Is it a guilt complex,that you feel you have to justify your non contributary efforts towards today's economy in this time of recession, in respect of your chosen mode of transport,when everybody else is paying through the nose.?
Like I said in my first post,before I was incorrectly corrected,legally and technically,all you say may very well be right,that doesn't make it morally right though...slavery was legal once upon a time!
But vehicle excise duty and the other things most motorists(as some don't pay VED either) pay for don't contribute to the roads either, so why should we make extra contributions on top of things like counci tax when motorists don't either?
Oh for pity's sake!There are none so blind,as those that cannot see!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]Your morals are not encoded in law. - pay proper insurance premiums Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies. - registered and identifiable No legal requirement, nor need for this. - qualified enough The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications. - old enough What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger? - healthy enough Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar? - tested and found to be roadworthy Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need. These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha ha!! :0)[/p][/quote]The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really![/p][/quote]Because you all keep pumping out the same spurious and dubious arguments, everytime someone dares to suggest that you all might just be getting a free ride. Is it a guilt complex,that you feel you have to justify your non contributary efforts towards today's economy in this time of recession, in respect of your chosen mode of transport,when everybody else is paying through the nose.? Like I said in my first post,before I was incorrectly corrected,legally and technically,all you say may very well be right,that doesn't make it morally right though...slavery was legal once upon a time![/p][/quote]But vehicle excise duty and the other things most motorists(as some don't pay VED either) pay for don't contribute to the roads either, so why should we make extra contributions on top of things like counci tax when motorists don't either?[/p][/quote]Oh for pity's sake!There are none so blind,as those that cannot see! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

4:11pm Wed 5 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
Your morals are not encoded in law.

- pay proper insurance premiums
Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies.

- registered and identifiable
No legal requirement, nor need for this.

- qualified enough
The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications.

- old enough
What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger?

- healthy enough
Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar?

- tested and found to be roadworthy
Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need.

These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.
Ha ha ha ha!! :0)
The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really!
Because you all keep pumping out the same spurious and dubious arguments, everytime someone dares to suggest that you all might just be getting a free ride.
Is it a guilt complex,that you feel you have to justify your non contributary efforts towards today's economy in this time of recession, in respect of your chosen mode of transport,when everybody else is paying through the nose.?
Like I said in my first post,before I was incorrectly corrected,legally and technically,all you say may very well be right,that doesn't make it morally right though...slavery was legal once upon a time!
But vehicle excise duty and the other things most motorists(as some don't pay VED either) pay for don't contribute to the roads either, so why should we make extra contributions on top of things like counci tax when motorists don't either?
Oh for pity's sake!There are none so blind,as those that cannot see!
What a shock! A direct question answered with an insult!

Council tax pays for the roads. I pay council tax. I also pay insurance on my bike which is well kept and has a unique identifiable frame registration. I also bought the bike brand new from my local bike shop, putting money into the economy in this time of recession by supporting a local business. That bike paid for 2 weeks wage of the assistant manager of the shop!

People pay through the nose for their vehicles for reasons that get explained time and time again. Why can't YOU see that? Also, they don't have to pay. They can sell the car and jump on a bike or get the train. They'd be healthier and have more money, ultimately 2 things which would improve their moods and they would stop their infernal bleating about having more right to be on the road. They don't. Legally or morally, they don't. Wake up.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]Your morals are not encoded in law. - pay proper insurance premiums Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies. - registered and identifiable No legal requirement, nor need for this. - qualified enough The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications. - old enough What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger? - healthy enough Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar? - tested and found to be roadworthy Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need. These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha ha!! :0)[/p][/quote]The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really![/p][/quote]Because you all keep pumping out the same spurious and dubious arguments, everytime someone dares to suggest that you all might just be getting a free ride. Is it a guilt complex,that you feel you have to justify your non contributary efforts towards today's economy in this time of recession, in respect of your chosen mode of transport,when everybody else is paying through the nose.? Like I said in my first post,before I was incorrectly corrected,legally and technically,all you say may very well be right,that doesn't make it morally right though...slavery was legal once upon a time![/p][/quote]But vehicle excise duty and the other things most motorists(as some don't pay VED either) pay for don't contribute to the roads either, so why should we make extra contributions on top of things like counci tax when motorists don't either?[/p][/quote]Oh for pity's sake!There are none so blind,as those that cannot see![/p][/quote]What a shock! A direct question answered with an insult! Council tax pays for the roads. I pay council tax. I also pay insurance on my bike which is well kept and has a unique identifiable frame registration. I also bought the bike brand new from my local bike shop, putting money into the economy in this time of recession by supporting a local business. That bike paid for 2 weeks wage of the assistant manager of the shop! People pay through the nose for their vehicles for reasons that get explained time and time again. Why can't YOU see that? Also, they don't have to pay. They can sell the car and jump on a bike or get the train. They'd be healthier and have more money, ultimately 2 things which would improve their moods and they would stop their infernal bleating about having more right to be on the road. They don't. Legally or morally, they don't. Wake up. camerajuan
  • Score: 4

4:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer.
So you think its Ok to use those suffering terminal cancer as part of your insulting answer, you are beneath contempt.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer.[/p][/quote]So you think its Ok to use those suffering terminal cancer as part of your insulting answer, you are beneath contempt. geoff51
  • Score: 3

4:24pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer.
So you think its Ok to use those suffering terminal cancer as part of your insulting answer, you are beneath contempt.
I did nothing of the sort, get off your high horse before someone knocks you off.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer.[/p][/quote]So you think its Ok to use those suffering terminal cancer as part of your insulting answer, you are beneath contempt.[/p][/quote]I did nothing of the sort, get off your high horse before someone knocks you off. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

This letter writer has achieved his goal of bringing out the riteous indignation of the infallible and never wrong cycling brigade.
As usual they have all risen to the bait and made themselves look stupid in the process.
Job done I think, and no it isn't me!
This letter writer has achieved his goal of bringing out the riteous indignation of the infallible and never wrong cycling brigade. As usual they have all risen to the bait and made themselves look stupid in the process. Job done I think, and no it isn't me! geoff51
  • Score: -8

4:28pm Wed 5 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer.
So you think its Ok to use those suffering terminal cancer as part of your insulting answer, you are beneath contempt.
I did nothing of the sort, get off your high horse before someone knocks you off.
What was the reference to Cancer doing in your reply, it was a very poor choice of words and insulting in the extreme
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer.[/p][/quote]So you think its Ok to use those suffering terminal cancer as part of your insulting answer, you are beneath contempt.[/p][/quote]I did nothing of the sort, get off your high horse before someone knocks you off.[/p][/quote]What was the reference to Cancer doing in your reply, it was a very poor choice of words and insulting in the extreme geoff51
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer.
So you think its Ok to use those suffering terminal cancer as part of your insulting answer, you are beneath contempt.
I did nothing of the sort, get off your high horse before someone knocks you off.
What was the reference to Cancer doing in your reply, it was a very poor choice of words and insulting in the extreme
It insulted no one, as it wasn't aimed at anyone.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer.[/p][/quote]So you think its Ok to use those suffering terminal cancer as part of your insulting answer, you are beneath contempt.[/p][/quote]I did nothing of the sort, get off your high horse before someone knocks you off.[/p][/quote]What was the reference to Cancer doing in your reply, it was a very poor choice of words and insulting in the extreme[/p][/quote]It insulted no one, as it wasn't aimed at anyone. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -4

4:39pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Wed 5 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer.
So you think its Ok to use those suffering terminal cancer as part of your insulting answer, you are beneath contempt.
I did nothing of the sort, get off your high horse before someone knocks you off.
What was the reference to Cancer doing in your reply, it was a very poor choice of words and insulting in the extreme
It insulted no one, as it wasn't aimed at anyone.
Why use that choice of words then, it insulted every Cancer sufferer by trivialising their illness to make your point.
I feel an open apology would be a good move on your part as you are usually one of the more sensible pro cycling posters and it would place you above the arrogant threatening posts from some of your cycling buddies.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]There was so much stupid in that comment that it gave me cancer.[/p][/quote]So you think its Ok to use those suffering terminal cancer as part of your insulting answer, you are beneath contempt.[/p][/quote]I did nothing of the sort, get off your high horse before someone knocks you off.[/p][/quote]What was the reference to Cancer doing in your reply, it was a very poor choice of words and insulting in the extreme[/p][/quote]It insulted no one, as it wasn't aimed at anyone.[/p][/quote]Why use that choice of words then, it insulted every Cancer sufferer by trivialising their illness to make your point. I feel an open apology would be a good move on your part as you are usually one of the more sensible pro cycling posters and it would place you above the arrogant threatening posts from some of your cycling buddies. geoff51
  • Score: -1

4:41pm Wed 5 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in!
Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in! camerajuan
  • Score: 1

4:44pm Wed 5 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

camerajuan wrote:
Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in!
TROLL!
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in![/p][/quote]TROLL! geoff51
  • Score: -4

4:46pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I’d like to respond to your letter with truth.

"What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?!

"And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided..

"I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault.

Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more.

Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?!
Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.
Your morals are not encoded in law.

- pay proper insurance premiums
Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies.

- registered and identifiable
No legal requirement, nor need for this.

- qualified enough
The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications.

- old enough
What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger?

- healthy enough
Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar?

- tested and found to be roadworthy
Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need.

These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.
Ha ha ha ha!! :0)
The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really!
Because you all keep pumping out the same spurious and dubious arguments, everytime someone dares to suggest that you all might just be getting a free ride.
Is it a guilt complex,that you feel you have to justify your non contributary efforts towards today's economy in this time of recession, in respect of your chosen mode of transport,when everybody else is paying through the nose.?
Like I said in my first post,before I was incorrectly corrected,legally and technically,all you say may very well be right,that doesn't make it morally right though...slavery was legal once upon a time!
But vehicle excise duty and the other things most motorists(as some don't pay VED either) pay for don't contribute to the roads either, so why should we make extra contributions on top of things like counci tax when motorists don't either?
Oh for pity's sake!There are none so blind,as those that cannot see!
What a shock! A direct question answered with an insult!

Council tax pays for the roads. I pay council tax. I also pay insurance on my bike which is well kept and has a unique identifiable frame registration. I also bought the bike brand new from my local bike shop, putting money into the economy in this time of recession by supporting a local business. That bike paid for 2 weeks wage of the assistant manager of the shop!

People pay through the nose for their vehicles for reasons that get explained time and time again. Why can't YOU see that? Also, they don't have to pay. They can sell the car and jump on a bike or get the train. They'd be healthier and have more money, ultimately 2 things which would improve their moods and they would stop their infernal bleating about having more right to be on the road. They don't. Legally or morally, they don't. Wake up.
Sorry,this was the post my last post was referring to when I mentioned the insult.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I’d like to respond to your letter with truth. "What gives cyclists any right to be on the road when they don’t pay road tax and don’t have insurance?" - How do you not get this yet?!?! If you pay council tax, you pay for the road upkeep. I have private insurance on my bike and most are covered under their home insurance. Who are you to tell cyclists what they are/are not entitled to do when you haven't got a clue about the subject?!?! "And why do cyclists feel the need to break red lights or cut on to the path to miss them? Cut you up at junctions? Hit your wing mirrors and ride off ? The need to ride 3ft off the kerb? Ride on the road even though a cycle path is provided and clearly signposted? Why ride/wait in the middle of the road when turning right?" - You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people by mentioning things that could happen. Not every cyclist breaks red lights, cut people up or hit your wing mirrors and ride off. Cutting onto paths is perfectly legal at some traffic lights as there are throughways built into the pavement for that purpose alone. Riding 3 feet off the kerb is sometimes essential to avoid potholes/drain covers. If you can't get past a car in front, you wait until you can, exercise the same principle with cyclists. Riding/Waiting in the middle of the road when turning right is how you turn right as a cyclist. If you didn't, you'd eventually get in two lanes worth of traffic's way. Cycle paths are not mandatory when they are provided.. "I have had a couple of occasions now where I’ve also been turning right with my indicator on yet a bike will clearly see this and risk itself by sitting in front of me. Surely anyone with half a brain or courtesy would think ‘that car is turning right I won’t sit in front of it because it has an engine, therefore is able to pull away faster than me’?" - No. If you're at traffic lights cyclists are perfectly entitled to sit in front of you no matter what direction you are turning. Its safer and many lights have markings to identify the safe distance. If you hit a cyclist from behind, that's your fault. Your only redeeming statement in this entire letter is that you "know it's not every cyclist" but if you knew that and you knew the rules you wouldn't have even thought that writing this letter would be a good idea. Grow up and read more. Thank you DE for your additional clarification on the letter. When will people learn?!?![/p][/quote]Technically right,morally wrong,when cyclists accept that there is no reason why they shouldn't be expected to pay proper insurance premiums,be registered and identifiable,be able to produce documentation that certifies that they are qualified enough,old enough,healthy enough,and are riding a vehicle that has been tested and found to be roadworthy, expect to keep reading justifiable grievances like the one above.[/p][/quote]Your morals are not encoded in law. - pay proper insurance premiums Based on the risk, these would be negligible. Indeed, insurance is given away free by clubs and insurance companies. - registered and identifiable No legal requirement, nor need for this. - qualified enough The minimal danger posed by a cyclist justifies the lack of a requirement for qualifications. - old enough What age do you suggest? Are children such a danger? - healthy enough Cycling improves health. How do you propose to set this bar? - tested and found to be roadworthy Were unroadworthy cycles to be a significant cause of danger, there would be a test. There is no need. These grievances are unjustified. Must troll harder.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha ha!! :0)[/p][/quote]The fact that you think the OP has a "justifiable grievance" speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Not sure why you're laughing really![/p][/quote]Because you all keep pumping out the same spurious and dubious arguments, everytime someone dares to suggest that you all might just be getting a free ride. Is it a guilt complex,that you feel you have to justify your non contributary efforts towards today's economy in this time of recession, in respect of your chosen mode of transport,when everybody else is paying through the nose.? Like I said in my first post,before I was incorrectly corrected,legally and technically,all you say may very well be right,that doesn't make it morally right though...slavery was legal once upon a time![/p][/quote]But vehicle excise duty and the other things most motorists(as some don't pay VED either) pay for don't contribute to the roads either, so why should we make extra contributions on top of things like counci tax when motorists don't either?[/p][/quote]Oh for pity's sake!There are none so blind,as those that cannot see![/p][/quote]What a shock! A direct question answered with an insult! Council tax pays for the roads. I pay council tax. I also pay insurance on my bike which is well kept and has a unique identifiable frame registration. I also bought the bike brand new from my local bike shop, putting money into the economy in this time of recession by supporting a local business. That bike paid for 2 weeks wage of the assistant manager of the shop! People pay through the nose for their vehicles for reasons that get explained time and time again. Why can't YOU see that? Also, they don't have to pay. They can sell the car and jump on a bike or get the train. They'd be healthier and have more money, ultimately 2 things which would improve their moods and they would stop their infernal bleating about having more right to be on the road. They don't. Legally or morally, they don't. Wake up.[/p][/quote]Sorry,this was the post my last post was referring to when I mentioned the insult. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Wed 5 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts? camerajuan
  • Score: 2

5:10pm Wed 5 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in!
TROLL!
Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus!
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in![/p][/quote]TROLL![/p][/quote]Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus! camerajuan
  • Score: 2

5:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -3

5:54pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
Still too much stupid, it's making me sick.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.[/p][/quote]Still too much stupid, it's making me sick. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -8

6:11pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
Still too much stupid, it's making me sick.
What,you'd rather not pay any tax d'you mean? Wouldn't we all. ;0)
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.[/p][/quote]Still too much stupid, it's making me sick.[/p][/quote]What,you'd rather not pay any tax d'you mean? Wouldn't we all. ;0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

6:13pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
Still too much stupid, it's making me sick.
What,you'd rather not pay any tax d'you mean? Wouldn't we all. ;0)
Everyone pays tax one way or another, most common tax that everyone pays is VAT.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.[/p][/quote]Still too much stupid, it's making me sick.[/p][/quote]What,you'd rather not pay any tax d'you mean? Wouldn't we all. ;0)[/p][/quote]Everyone pays tax one way or another, most common tax that everyone pays is VAT. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
Still too much stupid, it's making me sick.
What,you'd rather not pay any tax d'you mean? Wouldn't we all. ;0)
Everyone pays tax one way or another, most common tax that everyone pays is VAT.
Yeah,I'm feeling a bit taxed at the moment Ginge.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.[/p][/quote]Still too much stupid, it's making me sick.[/p][/quote]What,you'd rather not pay any tax d'you mean? Wouldn't we all. ;0)[/p][/quote]Everyone pays tax one way or another, most common tax that everyone pays is VAT.[/p][/quote]Yeah,I'm feeling a bit taxed at the moment Ginge. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

7:39pm Wed 5 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in!
TROLL!
Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus!
Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in![/p][/quote]TROLL![/p][/quote]Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus![/p][/quote]Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view. geoff51
  • Score: 0

8:24pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in!
TROLL!
Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus!
Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.
Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in![/p][/quote]TROLL![/p][/quote]Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus![/p][/quote]Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.[/p][/quote]Try practicing what you preach Geoffry. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

9:01pm Wed 5 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in!
TROLL!
Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus!
Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.
Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.
I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in![/p][/quote]TROLL![/p][/quote]Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus![/p][/quote]Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.[/p][/quote]Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.[/p][/quote]I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite! geoff51
  • Score: 0

11:18pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in!
TROLL!
Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus!
Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.
Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.
I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite!
I didn't insult anyone you moron.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in![/p][/quote]TROLL![/p][/quote]Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus![/p][/quote]Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.[/p][/quote]Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.[/p][/quote]I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite![/p][/quote]I didn't insult anyone you moron. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

11:37pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in!
TROLL!
Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus!
Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.
Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.
I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite!
I didn't insult anyone you moron.
Ha ha..that's almost an oxymoron.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in![/p][/quote]TROLL![/p][/quote]Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus![/p][/quote]Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.[/p][/quote]Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.[/p][/quote]I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite![/p][/quote]I didn't insult anyone you moron.[/p][/quote]Ha ha..that's almost an oxymoron. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -3

11:46pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in!
TROLL!
Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus!
Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.
Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.
I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite!
I didn't insult anyone you moron.
Ha ha..that's almost an oxymoron.
Well, you two don't respond well to facts, so I thought I'd try something different... You still didn't respond well, shall I try speaking Russian? You might have better responses then.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in![/p][/quote]TROLL![/p][/quote]Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus![/p][/quote]Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.[/p][/quote]Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.[/p][/quote]I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite![/p][/quote]I didn't insult anyone you moron.[/p][/quote]Ha ha..that's almost an oxymoron.[/p][/quote]Well, you two don't respond well to facts, so I thought I'd try something different... You still didn't respond well, shall I try speaking Russian? You might have better responses then. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

12:04am Thu 6 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in!
TROLL!
Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus!
Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.
Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.
I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite!
I didn't insult anyone you moron.
Ha ha..that's almost an oxymoron.
Well, you two don't respond well to facts, so I thought I'd try something different... You still didn't respond well, shall I try speaking Russian? You might have better responses then.
You're not Rodion Raskolnikov then by any chance are you?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in![/p][/quote]TROLL![/p][/quote]Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus![/p][/quote]Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.[/p][/quote]Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.[/p][/quote]I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite![/p][/quote]I didn't insult anyone you moron.[/p][/quote]Ha ha..that's almost an oxymoron.[/p][/quote]Well, you two don't respond well to facts, so I thought I'd try something different... You still didn't respond well, shall I try speaking Russian? You might have better responses then.[/p][/quote]You're not Rodion Raskolnikov then by any chance are you? Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

12:09am Thu 6 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in!
TROLL!
Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus!
Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.
Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.
I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite!
I didn't insult anyone you moron.
Ha ha..that's almost an oxymoron.
Well, you two don't respond well to facts, so I thought I'd try something different... You still didn't respond well, shall I try speaking Russian? You might have better responses then.
You're not Rodion Raskolnikov then by any chance are you?
Nope, wouldn't be hard to use the internet to find out how to type things I might want to say in a different language though.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Ah Jeffy, I wondered when you would get out of your rubber cage and poke your wrinkled old nose in![/p][/quote]TROLL![/p][/quote]Yes yes Jeffy, we know you like apples. Back on the bus![/p][/quote]Camera One the film has run out on insulting me, it only shows you up for the sad man who can only bully and insult rather than understand others point of view.[/p][/quote]Try practicing what you preach Geoffry.[/p][/quote]I always do, but unlike you I don't resort to insulting people with terminal illness or mental illness. So don't tell me to practise what I preach you hypocrite![/p][/quote]I didn't insult anyone you moron.[/p][/quote]Ha ha..that's almost an oxymoron.[/p][/quote]Well, you two don't respond well to facts, so I thought I'd try something different... You still didn't respond well, shall I try speaking Russian? You might have better responses then.[/p][/quote]You're not Rodion Raskolnikov then by any chance are you?[/p][/quote]Nope, wouldn't be hard to use the internet to find out how to type things I might want to say in a different language though. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

9:00am Thu 6 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free.

"as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then?

"My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.[/p][/quote]"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free. "as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then? "My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

12:01pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free.

"as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then?

"My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.
Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout".
If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't.
So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.[/p][/quote]"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free. "as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then? "My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout". If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't. So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

12:14pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free.

"as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then?

"My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.
Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout".
If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't.
So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you.
But the only thing that pays for the roads(except possibly motorways which cyclists can't use anyway) is COUNCIL tax, VED doesn't even come into it and did you know that ritish motorists are in fact, some of the most subsidised in the world?
By your logic, pedestrians, mobility scooterists and horse riders are also getting a handout by not paying for the things that motorists pay for.
Also cyclists don't get subsidies like motorists do. So who is REALLY getting the handouts?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.[/p][/quote]"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free. "as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then? "My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout". If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't. So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you.[/p][/quote]But the only thing that pays for the roads(except possibly motorways which cyclists can't use anyway) is COUNCIL tax, VED doesn't even come into it and did you know that ritish motorists are in fact, some of the most subsidised in the world? By your logic, pedestrians, mobility scooterists and horse riders are also getting a handout by not paying for the things that motorists pay for. Also cyclists don't get subsidies like motorists do. So who is REALLY getting the handouts? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

12:32pm Thu 6 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free.

"as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then?

"My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.
Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout".
If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't.
So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you.
Absolute waste of time explaining anything to you it seems, but I'll try one last time.

"Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through indirect taxation" - Never once has anyone claimed that. What we all say - which is a fact - is that anyone who pays council tax is contributing towards the upkeep of the roads which renders the whole overdone and over-explained road tax argument that "cyclists don't pay road tax so they aren't entitled to use the roads" completely invalid.

"If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all" - It would, I would be the price of my bike, servicing and maintenance, insurance, and all my kit and spare parts better off. You think cycling is free. Basic maths and my bank account plus the exchange of goods act prove that its not.

"If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay. Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't." - Exact same as cyclists. They would have more money that they wouldn't be spending on their car. They pay higher insurance (which if you don't understand why, I don't understand how you find a door to get out of the house in the morning) because of the infinitely higher risk of accidental/careless collisions, breakdowns, hitting a dog etc than non-motorised vehicles. They pay VED also, which cyclists don't pay and shouldn't have to - no emissions! I don't pay for food that other people eat!

"So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you." - Not accepting any handouts to cycle, for the reasons I have explained above. Tax does not pay for cycling. Why you insist it does and that cycling is free is beyond me. I pay enough for all I own and enough tax for things I don't use. Nobody gave me anything for free.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.[/p][/quote]"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free. "as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then? "My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout". If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't. So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you.[/p][/quote]Absolute waste of time explaining anything to you it seems, but I'll try one last time. "Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through indirect taxation" - Never once has anyone claimed that. What we all say - which is a fact - is that anyone who pays council tax is contributing towards the upkeep of the roads which renders the whole overdone and over-explained road tax argument that "cyclists don't pay road tax so they aren't entitled to use the roads" completely invalid. "If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all" - It would, I would be the price of my bike, servicing and maintenance, insurance, and all my kit and spare parts better off. You think cycling is free. Basic maths and my bank account plus the exchange of goods act prove that its not. "If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay. Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't." - Exact same as cyclists. They would have more money that they wouldn't be spending on their car. They pay higher insurance (which if you don't understand why, I don't understand how you find a door to get out of the house in the morning) because of the infinitely higher risk of accidental/careless collisions, breakdowns, hitting a dog etc than non-motorised vehicles. They pay VED also, which cyclists don't pay and shouldn't have to - no emissions! I don't pay for food that other people eat! "So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you." - Not accepting any handouts to cycle, for the reasons I have explained above. Tax does not pay for cycling. Why you insist it does and that cycling is free is beyond me. I pay enough for all I own and enough tax for things I don't use. Nobody gave me anything for free. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

1:34pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free.

"as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then?

"My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.
Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout".
If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't.
So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you.
Absolute waste of time explaining anything to you it seems, but I'll try one last time.

"Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through indirect taxation" - Never once has anyone claimed that. What we all say - which is a fact - is that anyone who pays council tax is contributing towards the upkeep of the roads which renders the whole overdone and over-explained road tax argument that "cyclists don't pay road tax so they aren't entitled to use the roads" completely invalid.

"If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all" - It would, I would be the price of my bike, servicing and maintenance, insurance, and all my kit and spare parts better off. You think cycling is free. Basic maths and my bank account plus the exchange of goods act prove that its not.

"If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay. Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't." - Exact same as cyclists. They would have more money that they wouldn't be spending on their car. They pay higher insurance (which if you don't understand why, I don't understand how you find a door to get out of the house in the morning) because of the infinitely higher risk of accidental/careless collisions, breakdowns, hitting a dog etc than non-motorised vehicles. They pay VED also, which cyclists don't pay and shouldn't have to - no emissions! I don't pay for food that other people eat!

"So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you." - Not accepting any handouts to cycle, for the reasons I have explained above. Tax does not pay for cycling. Why you insist it does and that cycling is free is beyond me. I pay enough for all I own and enough tax for things I don't use. Nobody gave me anything for free.
"Tax does not pay for cycling" Right,we agree on something then.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.[/p][/quote]"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free. "as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then? "My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout". If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't. So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you.[/p][/quote]Absolute waste of time explaining anything to you it seems, but I'll try one last time. "Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through indirect taxation" - Never once has anyone claimed that. What we all say - which is a fact - is that anyone who pays council tax is contributing towards the upkeep of the roads which renders the whole overdone and over-explained road tax argument that "cyclists don't pay road tax so they aren't entitled to use the roads" completely invalid. "If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all" - It would, I would be the price of my bike, servicing and maintenance, insurance, and all my kit and spare parts better off. You think cycling is free. Basic maths and my bank account plus the exchange of goods act prove that its not. "If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay. Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't." - Exact same as cyclists. They would have more money that they wouldn't be spending on their car. They pay higher insurance (which if you don't understand why, I don't understand how you find a door to get out of the house in the morning) because of the infinitely higher risk of accidental/careless collisions, breakdowns, hitting a dog etc than non-motorised vehicles. They pay VED also, which cyclists don't pay and shouldn't have to - no emissions! I don't pay for food that other people eat! "So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you." - Not accepting any handouts to cycle, for the reasons I have explained above. Tax does not pay for cycling. Why you insist it does and that cycling is free is beyond me. I pay enough for all I own and enough tax for things I don't use. Nobody gave me anything for free.[/p][/quote]"Tax does not pay for cycling" Right,we agree on something then. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

1:36pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free.

"as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then?

"My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.
Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout".
If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't.
So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you.
Absolute waste of time explaining anything to you it seems, but I'll try one last time.

"Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through indirect taxation" - Never once has anyone claimed that. What we all say - which is a fact - is that anyone who pays council tax is contributing towards the upkeep of the roads which renders the whole overdone and over-explained road tax argument that "cyclists don't pay road tax so they aren't entitled to use the roads" completely invalid.

"If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all" - It would, I would be the price of my bike, servicing and maintenance, insurance, and all my kit and spare parts better off. You think cycling is free. Basic maths and my bank account plus the exchange of goods act prove that its not.

"If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay. Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't." - Exact same as cyclists. They would have more money that they wouldn't be spending on their car. They pay higher insurance (which if you don't understand why, I don't understand how you find a door to get out of the house in the morning) because of the infinitely higher risk of accidental/careless collisions, breakdowns, hitting a dog etc than non-motorised vehicles. They pay VED also, which cyclists don't pay and shouldn't have to - no emissions! I don't pay for food that other people eat!

"So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you." - Not accepting any handouts to cycle, for the reasons I have explained above. Tax does not pay for cycling. Why you insist it does and that cycling is free is beyond me. I pay enough for all I own and enough tax for things I don't use. Nobody gave me anything for free.
"Tax does not pay for cycling" Right,we agree on something then.
Then we don't get handouts for cycling, glad we've got that sorted.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.[/p][/quote]"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free. "as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then? "My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout". If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't. So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you.[/p][/quote]Absolute waste of time explaining anything to you it seems, but I'll try one last time. "Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through indirect taxation" - Never once has anyone claimed that. What we all say - which is a fact - is that anyone who pays council tax is contributing towards the upkeep of the roads which renders the whole overdone and over-explained road tax argument that "cyclists don't pay road tax so they aren't entitled to use the roads" completely invalid. "If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all" - It would, I would be the price of my bike, servicing and maintenance, insurance, and all my kit and spare parts better off. You think cycling is free. Basic maths and my bank account plus the exchange of goods act prove that its not. "If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay. Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't." - Exact same as cyclists. They would have more money that they wouldn't be spending on their car. They pay higher insurance (which if you don't understand why, I don't understand how you find a door to get out of the house in the morning) because of the infinitely higher risk of accidental/careless collisions, breakdowns, hitting a dog etc than non-motorised vehicles. They pay VED also, which cyclists don't pay and shouldn't have to - no emissions! I don't pay for food that other people eat! "So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you." - Not accepting any handouts to cycle, for the reasons I have explained above. Tax does not pay for cycling. Why you insist it does and that cycling is free is beyond me. I pay enough for all I own and enough tax for things I don't use. Nobody gave me anything for free.[/p][/quote]"Tax does not pay for cycling" Right,we agree on something then.[/p][/quote]Then we don't get handouts for cycling, glad we've got that sorted. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

1:50pm Thu 6 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer"
And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down"
Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.
Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free?

And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?
Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay.
My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.
"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free.

"as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then?

"My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.
Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout".
If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't.
So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you.
Absolute waste of time explaining anything to you it seems, but I'll try one last time.

"Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through indirect taxation" - Never once has anyone claimed that. What we all say - which is a fact - is that anyone who pays council tax is contributing towards the upkeep of the roads which renders the whole overdone and over-explained road tax argument that "cyclists don't pay road tax so they aren't entitled to use the roads" completely invalid.

"If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all" - It would, I would be the price of my bike, servicing and maintenance, insurance, and all my kit and spare parts better off. You think cycling is free. Basic maths and my bank account plus the exchange of goods act prove that its not.

"If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay. Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't." - Exact same as cyclists. They would have more money that they wouldn't be spending on their car. They pay higher insurance (which if you don't understand why, I don't understand how you find a door to get out of the house in the morning) because of the infinitely higher risk of accidental/careless collisions, breakdowns, hitting a dog etc than non-motorised vehicles. They pay VED also, which cyclists don't pay and shouldn't have to - no emissions! I don't pay for food that other people eat!

"So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you." - Not accepting any handouts to cycle, for the reasons I have explained above. Tax does not pay for cycling. Why you insist it does and that cycling is free is beyond me. I pay enough for all I own and enough tax for things I don't use. Nobody gave me anything for free.
"Tax does not pay for cycling" Right,we agree on something then.
Why the heck is it free then?!?! According to you its a handout and a privelege?!?! How have you come to this conclusion?!?!
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: It was a slightly misquoted proverb actually,not an insult,and certainly not as insulting as "There was so much stupid in that comment,it gave me cancer" And here's another proverb for you "The nail that sticks up,is always the one hammered down" Look,I get a free bus pass,and claim my winter fuel allowance. Like you with cycling,I'm not going to turn down anything that is ostensibly free;but like you,I could equally argue that I've paid for it all through my taxes indirectly and therefore am legally entitled to it,which I am.But there are many people that would argue that it is not morally right to accept handouts that I could easily afford to pay for;but unlike you,I am not denying that.[/p][/quote]Can you explain to me how my choice to cycle is free? And then explain the rest of your comment about handouts?[/p][/quote]Well if you chose NOT,to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off,as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay. My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that.[/p][/quote]"Well if you chose not to cycle you wouldn't be any financially worse off" - That definitely wasn't my question. I asked you to explain how my choice TO cycle free. "as you keep telling us that it is only paid for by indirect taxation which as you keep emphathising we ALL pay." - I have never once stated that taxes pay for cycling. What have you been smoking? If cycling is paid for by taxes - why in the name of smeg am I using my already taxed earnings to pay for my bike, insurance, servicing, parts and kit + VAT then? "My comment about hand outs was complete, sorry if you misunderstood that." - You say that morally, people shouldn't accept handouts they can afford, which I agree with. Don't know where you got the idea that I don't.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through inderect taxation,and therefore shouldn't have to pay anymore,which based on the fact that as you said yourself everyone pays those,and as I pointed out,bus passes and winter fuel allowances are paid for in the same way,makes cycling a "handout". If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all,apart from those items you mention, which are sundries, nothing to do with taxation(apart from the vat you pay on them)If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay.Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't. So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you.[/p][/quote]Absolute waste of time explaining anything to you it seems, but I'll try one last time. "Sorry mate,but every cyclist on here claims that they pay for the privilege through indirect taxation" - Never once has anyone claimed that. What we all say - which is a fact - is that anyone who pays council tax is contributing towards the upkeep of the roads which renders the whole overdone and over-explained road tax argument that "cyclists don't pay road tax so they aren't entitled to use the roads" completely invalid. "If you stopped cycling,your financial circumstances wouldn't change at all" - It would, I would be the price of my bike, servicing and maintenance, insurance, and all my kit and spare parts better off. You think cycling is free. Basic maths and my bank account plus the exchange of goods act prove that its not. "If motorists stopped driving,the financial gain would be enormous by virtue of the fact they are paying for all the extras which you insist cyclists should not have to pay. Meaning that cyclists are cycling for free(a handout)and motorists aren't." - Exact same as cyclists. They would have more money that they wouldn't be spending on their car. They pay higher insurance (which if you don't understand why, I don't understand how you find a door to get out of the house in the morning) because of the infinitely higher risk of accidental/careless collisions, breakdowns, hitting a dog etc than non-motorised vehicles. They pay VED also, which cyclists don't pay and shouldn't have to - no emissions! I don't pay for food that other people eat! "So if you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay over and above the indirect taxation that you say pays for your cycling,by default you are accepting a handout,but by refusing to consider the idea of paying for the privilege, denying that it would be morally preferable, to consider making a contribution,over and above what you rightfully say,is all that is required of you." - Not accepting any handouts to cycle, for the reasons I have explained above. Tax does not pay for cycling. Why you insist it does and that cycling is free is beyond me. I pay enough for all I own and enough tax for things I don't use. Nobody gave me anything for free.[/p][/quote]"Tax does not pay for cycling" Right,we agree on something then.[/p][/quote]Why the heck is it free then?!?! According to you its a handout and a privelege?!?! How have you come to this conclusion?!?! camerajuan
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

3:07pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
Tax doesn't pay for driving, walking, or riding horses either, ergo, by your logic, they're FREE which couldn't be further from the truth, the only way of getting around that's close to being "free"(got to buy lothes and stuff) is by walking, you have to buy parts and pay for labour to fix bikes and cars, you need to pay for vets when a horse gets sick, bikes cost a lot to buy in the first place, cars usually cost more though bikes can cost MORE than a brand new car, so no, cycling isn't "free", it's just VERY cheap compared to driving.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]Tax doesn't pay for driving, walking, or riding horses either, ergo, by your logic, they're FREE which couldn't be further from the truth, the only way of getting around that's close to being "free"(got to buy lothes and stuff) is by walking, you have to buy parts and pay for labour to fix bikes and cars, you need to pay for vets when a horse gets sick, bikes cost a lot to buy in the first place, cars usually cost more though bikes can cost MORE than a brand new car, so no, cycling isn't "free", it's just VERY cheap compared to driving. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

3:27pm Thu 6 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG! camerajuan
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Thu 6 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then! geoff51
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Thu 6 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
Care to input something useful jeffy or you gonna just sit on your soap box proclaiming your all knowing greatness again?

If tax doesn't pay for something, that makes it free according to your friend - do you agree? Tax doesn't pay my rent, am I an idiot for paying it?!
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]Care to input something useful jeffy or you gonna just sit on your soap box proclaiming your all knowing greatness again? If tax doesn't pay for something, that makes it free according to your friend - do you agree? Tax doesn't pay my rent, am I an idiot for paying it?! camerajuan
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

4:10pm Thu 6 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.[/p][/quote]Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure geoff51
  • Score: -2

4:30pm Thu 6 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

Fiesta
Fabia
c3
i10
i20
207
clio
fiat 500
micra
iq
up!
smart
picanto

Just a few of the cars that don't pay any as you call it "ROAD TAX"!!!
If it was "ROAD TAX" then they would have to pay it wouldn't they?
THEY DON'T PAY IT BECAUSE IT IS NOT "ROAD TAX" IT IS EXCISE DUTY ON DIRTY POLLUTING VEHICLES AND NOTHING TO DO WITH ROAD UPKEEP.

GET OVER IT MOVE ON , HATE SOMETHING ELSE!
Fiesta Fabia c3 i10 i20 207 clio fiat 500 micra iq up! smart picanto Just a few of the cars that don't pay any as you call it "ROAD TAX"!!! If it was "ROAD TAX" then they would have to pay it wouldn't they? THEY DON'T PAY IT BECAUSE IT IS NOT "ROAD TAX" IT IS EXCISE DUTY ON DIRTY POLLUTING VEHICLES AND NOTHING TO DO WITH ROAD UPKEEP. GET OVER IT MOVE ON , HATE SOMETHING ELSE! bigfella777
  • Score: 3

4:34pm Thu 6 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure
Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.[/p][/quote]Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure[/p][/quote]Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

4:46pm Thu 6 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure
Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.
I rest my case.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.[/p][/quote]Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure[/p][/quote]Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.[/p][/quote]I rest my case. geoff51
  • Score: -2

4:47pm Thu 6 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure
Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.
I rest my case.
You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.[/p][/quote]Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure[/p][/quote]Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.[/p][/quote]I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

4:53pm Thu 6 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure
Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.
I rest my case.
You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.
You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights
Ta Ta mugs!!
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.[/p][/quote]Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure[/p][/quote]Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.[/p][/quote]I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.[/p][/quote]You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights Ta Ta mugs!! geoff51
  • Score: -4

4:56pm Thu 6 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure
Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.
I rest my case.
You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.
You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights
Ta Ta mugs!!
Of course Jeffy, run along now. It'll be dark soon. You know how much you bang your head in the dark.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.[/p][/quote]Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure[/p][/quote]Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.[/p][/quote]I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.[/p][/quote]You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights Ta Ta mugs!![/p][/quote]Of course Jeffy, run along now. It'll be dark soon. You know how much you bang your head in the dark. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

4:58pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure
Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.
I rest my case.
You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.
You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights
Ta Ta mugs!!
What if up the inside is where the filter lane for the ASL is, like they normally are and the cyclist stops at the ASL?
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.[/p][/quote]Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure[/p][/quote]Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.[/p][/quote]I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.[/p][/quote]You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights Ta Ta mugs!![/p][/quote]What if up the inside is where the filter lane for the ASL is, like they normally are and the cyclist stops at the ASL? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure
Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.
I rest my case.
You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.
You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights
Ta Ta mugs!!
What if up the inside is where the filter lane for the ASL is, like they normally are and the cyclist stops at the ASL?
Ever heard of magnanimity?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.[/p][/quote]Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure[/p][/quote]Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.[/p][/quote]I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.[/p][/quote]You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights Ta Ta mugs!![/p][/quote]What if up the inside is where the filter lane for the ASL is, like they normally are and the cyclist stops at the ASL?[/p][/quote]Ever heard of magnanimity? Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -3

1:16am Fri 7 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free.
If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?!

In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO!

WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure
Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.
I rest my case.
You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.
You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights
Ta Ta mugs!!
What if up the inside is where the filter lane for the ASL is, like they normally are and the cyclist stops at the ASL?
Ever heard of magnanimity?
I certainly wouldn't forgive anyone if they injured or killed me for doing something that's legal.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.[/p][/quote]Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure[/p][/quote]Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.[/p][/quote]I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.[/p][/quote]You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights Ta Ta mugs!![/p][/quote]What if up the inside is where the filter lane for the ASL is, like they normally are and the cyclist stops at the ASL?[/p][/quote]Ever heard of magnanimity?[/p][/quote]I certainly wouldn't forgive anyone if they injured or killed me for doing something that's legal. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

5:41am Fri 7 Mar 14

nervousbumskin420 says...

10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES!

WORK HARDER
BUY A CAR!
10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES! WORK HARDER BUY A CAR! nervousbumskin420
  • Score: 0

5:42am Fri 7 Mar 14

nervousbumskin420 says...

geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure
Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.
I rest my case.
You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.
You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights Ta Ta mugs!!
haha this is sooo getting done!
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.[/p][/quote]Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure[/p][/quote]Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.[/p][/quote]I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.[/p][/quote]You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights Ta Ta mugs!![/p][/quote]haha this is sooo getting done! nervousbumskin420
  • Score: 0

8:55am Fri 7 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

nervousbumskin420 wrote:
10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES!

WORK HARDER
BUY A CAR!
Well you're a complete tool aren't you?
[quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: 10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES! WORK HARDER BUY A CAR![/p][/quote]Well you're a complete tool aren't you? camerajuan
  • Score: 0

9:03am Fri 7 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
nervousbumskin420 wrote:
10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES!

WORK HARDER
BUY A CAR!
Well you're a complete tool aren't you?
I used to have one of those when I rode a bike,used to keep it in my saddle bag.
It was just one spanner, with all the appropriate sized holes in it.
Happy days.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: 10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES! WORK HARDER BUY A CAR![/p][/quote]Well you're a complete tool aren't you?[/p][/quote]I used to have one of those when I rode a bike,used to keep it in my saddle bag. It was just one spanner, with all the appropriate sized holes in it. Happy days. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 1

9:23am Fri 7 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
nervousbumskin420 wrote:
10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES!

WORK HARDER
BUY A CAR!
Well you're a complete tool aren't you?
I used to have one of those when I rode a bike,used to keep it in my saddle bag.
It was just one spanner, with all the appropriate sized holes in it.
Happy days.
There's a few spanners loitering around here all with the same infantile attitude.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: 10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES! WORK HARDER BUY A CAR![/p][/quote]Well you're a complete tool aren't you?[/p][/quote]I used to have one of those when I rode a bike,used to keep it in my saddle bag. It was just one spanner, with all the appropriate sized holes in it. Happy days.[/p][/quote]There's a few spanners loitering around here all with the same infantile attitude. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

9:33am Fri 7 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
nervousbumskin420 wrote:
10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES!

WORK HARDER
BUY A CAR!
Well you're a complete tool aren't you?
I used to have one of those when I rode a bike,used to keep it in my saddle bag.
It was just one spanner, with all the appropriate sized holes in it.
Happy days.
There's a few spanners loitering around here all with the same infantile attitude.
Well,you will often find a nut on a bike that needs some adjustment.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: 10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES! WORK HARDER BUY A CAR![/p][/quote]Well you're a complete tool aren't you?[/p][/quote]I used to have one of those when I rode a bike,used to keep it in my saddle bag. It was just one spanner, with all the appropriate sized holes in it. Happy days.[/p][/quote]There's a few spanners loitering around here all with the same infantile attitude.[/p][/quote]Well,you will often find a nut on a bike that needs some adjustment. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

10:42am Fri 7 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

nervousbumskin420 wrote:
10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES!

WORK HARDER
BUY A CAR!
You are aware that many cyclists do ALSO have at least 1 car but CHOOSE to leave it home right? Many also earn more than their motoring counterparts and yclists are less likely to tke sick days.
BE SMART.
BUY A BIKE.
[quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: 10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES! WORK HARDER BUY A CAR![/p][/quote]You are aware that many cyclists do ALSO have at least 1 car but CHOOSE to leave it home right? Many also earn more than their motoring counterparts and yclists are less likely to tke sick days. BE SMART. BUY A BIKE. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 3

10:44am Fri 7 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
nervousbumskin420 wrote:
10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES!

WORK HARDER
BUY A CAR!
Well you're a complete tool aren't you?
I used to have one of those when I rode a bike,used to keep it in my saddle bag.
It was just one spanner, with all the appropriate sized holes in it.
Happy days.
There's a few spanners loitering around here all with the same infantile attitude.
Well,you will often find a nut on a bike that needs some adjustment.
You often find many in a car too.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: 10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES! WORK HARDER BUY A CAR![/p][/quote]Well you're a complete tool aren't you?[/p][/quote]I used to have one of those when I rode a bike,used to keep it in my saddle bag. It was just one spanner, with all the appropriate sized holes in it. Happy days.[/p][/quote]There's a few spanners loitering around here all with the same infantile attitude.[/p][/quote]Well,you will often find a nut on a bike that needs some adjustment.[/p][/quote]You often find many in a car too. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

11:45am Fri 7 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

nervousbumskin420 wrote:
10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES!

WORK HARDER
BUY A CAR!
I cycle.

I have two cars and a large motorbike too.

Over to you, numbnuts.
[quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: 10 points if you knock one off their bike! im on 50 so far! cant wait to reach that magical 100! FUC4 OFF PUSHBIKES! WORK HARDER BUY A CAR![/p][/quote]I cycle. I have two cars and a large motorbike too. Over to you, numbnuts. From the sidelines
  • Score: 5

12:36pm Fri 7 Mar 14

AFrustratedCyclist says...

ill informed nonsense from an anti cycling troll, published by the Echo as clickbait to start an argument as usual

There are thousands of cars on the road which pay no VED at all nowadays, Electric, petrol hybrids and even plenty of small economical petrol cars too, by your argument they have no "right" to be on the road too. Before anybody says about fuel duty, it's a tax on a commodity cyclist don't need, I'll tell you what I'll start paying fuel duty for my bike, when you start paying the VAT on my food bill? No I thought not, a stupid argument. Fuel is taxed so highly because it causes pollution and health issues for many and to push people to use less in what ever way they choose, be that walking, cycling, public transport or by driving a more efficient car.

Oh and yes I have a car and insurance for my car and for cycling too...

When will the trolls and bigots give it a rest, live and let live, and learn to respect other peoples decisions and modes of transport motorists are people, cyclists are people all of which are fallible.

Cyclist do not just randomly shout abuse a motorists, yes it happens but because the motorist has no doubt just endangered them for the sake of leaving the space which they should.

Just live your own life and just let people be. Cyclist really aren't do anybody any harm or affecting your life
ill informed nonsense from an anti cycling troll, published by the Echo as clickbait to start an argument as usual There are thousands of cars on the road which pay no VED at all nowadays, Electric, petrol hybrids and even plenty of small economical petrol cars too, by your argument they have no "right" to be on the road too. Before anybody says about fuel duty, it's a tax on a commodity cyclist don't need, I'll tell you what I'll start paying fuel duty for my bike, when you start paying the VAT on my food bill? No I thought not, a stupid argument. Fuel is taxed so highly because it causes pollution and health issues for many and to push people to use less in what ever way they choose, be that walking, cycling, public transport or by driving a more efficient car. Oh and yes I have a car and insurance for my car and for cycling too... When will the trolls and bigots give it a rest, live and let live, and learn to respect other peoples decisions and modes of transport motorists are people, cyclists are people all of which are fallible. Cyclist do not just randomly shout abuse a motorists, yes it happens but because the motorist has no doubt just endangered them for the sake of leaving the space which they should. Just live your own life and just let people be. Cyclist really aren't do anybody any harm or affecting your life AFrustratedCyclist
  • Score: 6

12:37pm Fri 7 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

nervousbumskin420 wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.
How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG!
Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then!
And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.
Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure
Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.
I rest my case.
You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.
You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights Ta Ta mugs!!
haha this is sooo getting done!
And so will you be when you get caught by traffic cameras causing damage to property and dangerous driving.

And then hopefully up the R's too when you get put away for being the ridiculous selfish pr@ that you are.
[quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: You're tying yourself up in knots mate.Look,I've answered all your questions politely,and without rising to your insult "what have you been smoking?"and you've admitted "tax doesn't pay for cycling"..ergo,its free. If you are lucky enough to get something for nothing,why get so prickly and defensive about it? Enjoy it,and embrace it,like I do my bus pass,there's people in this world suffering starvation and enslavement as we speak;we should all be very grateful we live in a society which allows us a few perks.[/p][/quote]How is cycling FREE when I have to PAY FOR IT?!?!?! What have I got for nothing by choosing to cycle?!?!?! In your twisted world, if tax doesn't pay for something, it's free. So I can stop paying for my groceries, gym membership, toiletries, running spikes, train fares etc. NO! WAKE UP! UTTER MUG![/p][/quote]Reduced to insulting those who disagree with you again! No change then![/p][/quote]And you've got your nose up 4thStreet's arse, something else that doesn't change.[/p][/quote]Please don't lower yourself to the level of Camera One, you usually are a bit more honest and informative than him on here, but reading about your youtube videos I am not sure[/p][/quote]Of course everyone loves you Jeffster! You and your infinite knowledge of sweet f.a.[/p][/quote]I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You don't have a case Jeffy - you are a case.[/p][/quote]You cant argue with idiots, I have better things to do like attatching the blades to my car wheels to catch Cyclists as the pass inside my car to jump red lights Ta Ta mugs!![/p][/quote]haha this is sooo getting done![/p][/quote]And so will you be when you get caught by traffic cameras causing damage to property and dangerous driving. And then hopefully up the R's too when you get put away for being the ridiculous selfish pr@ that you are. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

12:54pm Fri 7 Mar 14

SteveinTotton says...

I have a Range Rover and a Ducatti but choose to use a pogo stick.
I have a Range Rover and a Ducatti but choose to use a pogo stick. SteveinTotton
  • Score: 3

2:09pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year.


The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over.


The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes.


Yeah.. bring on the fees..



,,,
I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year. The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over. The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes. Yeah.. bring on the fees.. ,,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 2

5:54pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Dan Soton wrote:
I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year.


The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over.


The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes.


Yeah.. bring on the fees..



,,,
Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year. The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over. The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes. Yeah.. bring on the fees.. ,,,[/p][/quote]Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

8:40pm Fri 7 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

Some cyclists are wreckless on the roads for sure. However in my experience many more motorists drive carelessly with far worse consequences. Stop squinnying and ignore the more vulnerable road users at your peril because it is your responsibility to drive with due care and attention.
Some cyclists are wreckless on the roads for sure. However in my experience many more motorists drive carelessly with far worse consequences. Stop squinnying and ignore the more vulnerable road users at your peril because it is your responsibility to drive with due care and attention. KSO16R
  • Score: 2

4:28pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year.


The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over.


The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes.


Yeah.. bring on the fees..



,,,
Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.
Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon?


Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years?



PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES.

30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55.

Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed.

Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation.

SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m.

If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete.

The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-lon
don-25549789


--


A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025.

Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities




,,
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year. The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over. The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes. Yeah.. bring on the fees.. ,,,[/p][/quote]Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.[/p][/quote]Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon? Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years? PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES. 30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55. Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed. Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation. SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m. If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete. The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lon don-25549789 -- A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025. Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 1

4:40pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year.


The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over.


The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes.


Yeah.. bring on the fees..



,,,
Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.
Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon?


Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years?



PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES.

30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55.

Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed.

Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation.

SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m.

If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete.

The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-england-lon

don-25549789


--


A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025.

Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities




,,
Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year. The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over. The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes. Yeah.. bring on the fees.. ,,,[/p][/quote]Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.[/p][/quote]Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon? Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years? PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES. 30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55. Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed. Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation. SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m. If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete. The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lon don-25549789 -- A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025. Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities ,,[/p][/quote]Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year.


The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over.


The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes.


Yeah.. bring on the fees..



,,,
Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.
Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon?


Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years?



PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES.

30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55.

Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed.

Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation.

SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m.

If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete.

The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/uk-england-lon


don-25549789


--


A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025.

Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities




,,
Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky.
Positively4thStreet.
.. Can't see it happening, given the disruption the construction would cause


I don't foresee any construction problems.. as for the willpower and money that's another matter..

Like most road/rail works.. prefabricated lightweight Cycle Superhighways would be erected above road/rail (or wherever) in the early hours of the night using specialised vehicles/cranes causing little or no disruption..

-

If we are heading for Gridlock Armageddon how would you avert it?

or in the case of a Cycle Superhighway divert over it..



,,
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year. The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over. The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes. Yeah.. bring on the fees.. ,,,[/p][/quote]Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.[/p][/quote]Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon? Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years? PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES. 30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55. Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed. Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation. SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m. If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete. The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lon don-25549789 -- A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025. Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities ,,[/p][/quote]Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky.[/p][/quote]Positively4thStreet. .. Can't see it happening, given the disruption the construction would cause I don't foresee any construction problems.. as for the willpower and money that's another matter.. Like most road/rail works.. prefabricated lightweight Cycle Superhighways would be erected above road/rail (or wherever) in the early hours of the night using specialised vehicles/cranes causing little or no disruption.. - If we are heading for Gridlock Armageddon how would you avert it? or in the case of a Cycle Superhighway divert over it.. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year.


The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over.


The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes.


Yeah.. bring on the fees..



,,,
Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.
Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon?


Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years?



PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES.

30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55.

Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed.

Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation.

SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m.

If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete.

The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk



/news/uk-england-lon



don-25549789


--


A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025.

Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities




,,
Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky.
Positively4thStreet.

.. Can't see it happening, given the disruption the construction would cause


I don't foresee any construction problems.. as for the willpower and money that's another matter..

Like most road/rail works.. prefabricated lightweight Cycle Superhighways would be erected above road/rail (or wherever) in the early hours of the night using specialised vehicles/cranes causing little or no disruption..

-

If we are heading for Gridlock Armageddon how would you avert it?

or in the case of a Cycle Superhighway divert over it..



,,
Don't know Dan if I'm honest,I've just moved to a city which has been completely by passed (no pun intended) by the motorway trunk system,and has only a quarter of its ring road completed,and the traffic is far worse than anything I've ever experienced in Southampton.
All I can say about the cycleways, is they would be a lovely idea,as its pretty obvious from all the above posts,that cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix,not in this country anyway,which judging by what I've seen in the Netherlands,where it works so well,is probably a cultural thing.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year. The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over. The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes. Yeah.. bring on the fees.. ,,,[/p][/quote]Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.[/p][/quote]Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon? Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years? PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES. 30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55. Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed. Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation. SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m. If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete. The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lon don-25549789 -- A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025. Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities ,,[/p][/quote]Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky.[/p][/quote]Positively4thStreet. .. Can't see it happening, given the disruption the construction would cause I don't foresee any construction problems.. as for the willpower and money that's another matter.. Like most road/rail works.. prefabricated lightweight Cycle Superhighways would be erected above road/rail (or wherever) in the early hours of the night using specialised vehicles/cranes causing little or no disruption.. - If we are heading for Gridlock Armageddon how would you avert it? or in the case of a Cycle Superhighway divert over it.. ,,[/p][/quote]Don't know Dan if I'm honest,I've just moved to a city which has been completely by passed (no pun intended) by the motorway trunk system,and has only a quarter of its ring road completed,and the traffic is far worse than anything I've ever experienced in Southampton. All I can say about the cycleways, is they would be a lovely idea,as its pretty obvious from all the above posts,that cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix,not in this country anyway,which judging by what I've seen in the Netherlands,where it works so well,is probably a cultural thing. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year.


The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over.


The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes.


Yeah.. bring on the fees..



,,,
Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.
Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon?


Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years?



PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES.

30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55.

Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed.

Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation.

SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m.

If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete.

The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk




/news/uk-england-lon




don-25549789


--


A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025.

Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities




,,
Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky.
Positively4thStreet.


.. Can't see it happening, given the disruption the construction would cause


I don't foresee any construction problems.. as for the willpower and money that's another matter..

Like most road/rail works.. prefabricated lightweight Cycle Superhighways would be erected above road/rail (or wherever) in the early hours of the night using specialised vehicles/cranes causing little or no disruption..

-

If we are heading for Gridlock Armageddon how would you avert it?

or in the case of a Cycle Superhighway divert over it..



,,
Don't know Dan if I'm honest,I've just moved to a city which has been completely by passed (no pun intended) by the motorway trunk system,and has only a quarter of its ring road completed,and the traffic is far worse than anything I've ever experienced in Southampton.
All I can say about the cycleways, is they would be a lovely idea,as its pretty obvious from all the above posts,that cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix,not in this country anyway,which judging by what I've seen in the Netherlands,where it works so well,is probably a cultural thing.
Yeah, our road planners are just money pinchin tw@ts.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year. The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over. The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes. Yeah.. bring on the fees.. ,,,[/p][/quote]Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.[/p][/quote]Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon? Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years? PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES. 30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55. Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed. Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation. SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m. If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete. The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lon don-25549789 -- A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025. Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities ,,[/p][/quote]Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky.[/p][/quote]Positively4thStreet. .. Can't see it happening, given the disruption the construction would cause I don't foresee any construction problems.. as for the willpower and money that's another matter.. Like most road/rail works.. prefabricated lightweight Cycle Superhighways would be erected above road/rail (or wherever) in the early hours of the night using specialised vehicles/cranes causing little or no disruption.. - If we are heading for Gridlock Armageddon how would you avert it? or in the case of a Cycle Superhighway divert over it.. ,,[/p][/quote]Don't know Dan if I'm honest,I've just moved to a city which has been completely by passed (no pun intended) by the motorway trunk system,and has only a quarter of its ring road completed,and the traffic is far worse than anything I've ever experienced in Southampton. All I can say about the cycleways, is they would be a lovely idea,as its pretty obvious from all the above posts,that cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix,not in this country anyway,which judging by what I've seen in the Netherlands,where it works so well,is probably a cultural thing.[/p][/quote]Yeah, our road planners are just money pinchin tw@ts. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

10:27pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Hiram Abiff says...

Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car! Hiram Abiff
  • Score: -2

10:54pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
[quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:30pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc). Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

11:34pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
October this year they expect to scrap that round bit of paper.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]October this year they expect to scrap that round bit of paper. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

11:47pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
October this year they expect to scrap that round bit of paper.
Hope so...its a pain in the @rse! ;0) Now shut up,I'm trying to watch match of the day!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]October this year they expect to scrap that round bit of paper.[/p][/quote]Hope so...its a pain in the @rse! ;0) Now shut up,I'm trying to watch match of the day! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 2

11:49pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
October this year they expect to scrap that round bit of paper.
Hope so...its a pain in the @rse! ;0) Now shut up,I'm trying to watch match of the day!
Yeah, too many idiots try using it as an excuse for bad driving.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]October this year they expect to scrap that round bit of paper.[/p][/quote]Hope so...its a pain in the @rse! ;0) Now shut up,I'm trying to watch match of the day![/p][/quote]Yeah, too many idiots try using it as an excuse for bad driving. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

8:46am Sun 9 Mar 14

Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-Graham says...

I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back.
'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities.
This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it.
PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!!
I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back. 'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities. This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it. PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!! Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-Graham
  • Score: -3

9:57am Sun 9 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G
raham
wrote:
I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back.
'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities.
This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it.
PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!!
Most posters who come on here are not against cycling per se,I'm not,in fact I'm just about to dig my old bike out,having just moved and get it serviced and overhauled,and start riding again,after a gap of about twenty five years.
What most people are concerned about,is that at the moment,its completely unregulated in that it allows anyone from say,a twelve year old who has no sense or knowledge of the rules of the road(or any other person completely untested) to an eighty year old with advanced angina,to just jump on a bike,and start riding down a public highway.
From a public safety point of view,that's just not acceptable,and is a loophole which needs tightening up,and yes,maybe in the form of some kind of officially recognised and documented testing,and identifiable registration.
[quote][p][bold]Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G raham[/bold] wrote: I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back. 'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities. This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it. PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!![/p][/quote]Most posters who come on here are not against cycling per se,I'm not,in fact I'm just about to dig my old bike out,having just moved and get it serviced and overhauled,and start riding again,after a gap of about twenty five years. What most people are concerned about,is that at the moment,its completely unregulated in that it allows anyone from say,a twelve year old who has no sense or knowledge of the rules of the road(or any other person completely untested) to an eighty year old with advanced angina,to just jump on a bike,and start riding down a public highway. From a public safety point of view,that's just not acceptable,and is a loophole which needs tightening up,and yes,maybe in the form of some kind of officially recognised and documented testing,and identifiable registration. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

11:09am Sun 9 Mar 14

Wheeled1 says...

I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said.

I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult.

My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit.

If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps.

Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..
I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said. I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult. My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit. If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps. Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory.. Wheeled1
  • Score: 2

1:34pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Wheeled1 wrote:
I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said.

I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult.

My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit.

If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps.

Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..
Cyclists are pretty easy to identify, they're individuals after all.
Filtering is perfectly legal and sitting in full view of the vehicle at the head of the queue is safe(just don't filter if you see traffic start moving), filtering through traffic also means you get to work or get home faster than all the cars that are slowing themselves down and most cyclists won't go for a gap if it looks too small and we're normally pretty good at judging such things.
Why should we have to wait in a queue for 30 minutes when we can just filter through it? We wouldn't do it if the gaps didn't exist.
If you're complaining about seeing lights then they were clearly bright enough for you to see that cyclist, though in a weird way I do agree that lights should have a minimum brightness, my main light is as bright as or brighter than many car headlights.
[quote][p][bold]Wheeled1[/bold] wrote: I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said. I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult. My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit. If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps. Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..[/p][/quote]Cyclists are pretty easy to identify, they're individuals after all. Filtering is perfectly legal and sitting in full view of the vehicle at the head of the queue is safe(just don't filter if you see traffic start moving), filtering through traffic also means you get to work or get home faster than all the cars that are slowing themselves down and most cyclists won't go for a gap if it looks too small and we're normally pretty good at judging such things. Why should we have to wait in a queue for 30 minutes when we can just filter through it? We wouldn't do it if the gaps didn't exist. If you're complaining about seeing lights then they were clearly bright enough for you to see that cyclist, though in a weird way I do agree that lights should have a minimum brightness, my main light is as bright as or brighter than many car headlights. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -3

2:22pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Mugsey2 says...

Wheeled1 wrote:
I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said.

I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult.

My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit.

If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps.

Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..
You sound like a right barrel of laughs, I bet your the center of attention on a night out, the ladies must be all over you mush
[quote][p][bold]Wheeled1[/bold] wrote: I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said. I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult. My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit. If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps. Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..[/p][/quote]You sound like a right barrel of laughs, I bet your the center of attention on a night out, the ladies must be all over you mush Mugsey2
  • Score: -4

3:10pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Wheeled1 wrote:
I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said.

I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult.

My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit.

If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps.

Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..
Rational intelligent post,perfectly reasonable points.
[quote][p][bold]Wheeled1[/bold] wrote: I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said. I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult. My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit. If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps. Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..[/p][/quote]Rational intelligent post,perfectly reasonable points. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

3:16pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Wheeled1 wrote:
I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said.

I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult.

My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit.

If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps.

Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..
Rational intelligent post,perfectly reasonable points.
More like unintelligent and irrational points.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wheeled1[/bold] wrote: I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said. I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult. My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit. If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps. Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..[/p][/quote]Rational intelligent post,perfectly reasonable points.[/p][/quote]More like unintelligent and irrational points. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

3:58pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Inform Al says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Wheeled1 wrote:
I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said.

I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult.

My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit.

If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps.

Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..
Rational intelligent post,perfectly reasonable points.
More like unintelligent and irrational points.
Usually are when it's cyclist v motorist or vice-versa
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wheeled1[/bold] wrote: I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said. I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult. My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit. If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps. Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..[/p][/quote]Rational intelligent post,perfectly reasonable points.[/p][/quote]More like unintelligent and irrational points.[/p][/quote]Usually are when it's cyclist v motorist or vice-versa Inform Al
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Sun 9 Mar 14

KSO16R says...

Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Wheeled1 wrote:
I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said.

I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult.

My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit.

If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps.

Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..
Rational intelligent post,perfectly reasonable points.
More like unintelligent and irrational points.
Usually are when it's cyclist v motorist or vice-versa
Reading the excellent expert opinions about all the problems and solutions in these posts makes me wonder how they manage in holland.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wheeled1[/bold] wrote: I gave up reading all the comments, so I am sorry if i am repeating what someone has already said. I think bikes should have some sort of identification so that if the cyclist breaks the law e.g. goes through a red light, they can be dealt with using education if a child, or education and/or some other sanction if an adult. My pet hate is when a cyclist decides to bypass a traffic queue by riding their bike through a gap between the cars that is less than the width of their handle bars. Motorcycles do that too, so it isn't just cyclists I have to admit. If I have to wait in a queue for 30 mins, why shouldn't cyclists wait too rather than try and squeeze their bikes through non-existant gaps. Finally, my other gripe with some cyclists is the dim flickering lights they use. A light should be on to light up the way ahead and to identify the other road users that you are there, and not as a fashion accessory..[/p][/quote]Rational intelligent post,perfectly reasonable points.[/p][/quote]More like unintelligent and irrational points.[/p][/quote]Usually are when it's cyclist v motorist or vice-versa[/p][/quote]Reading the excellent expert opinions about all the problems and solutions in these posts makes me wonder how they manage in holland. KSO16R
  • Score: 0

6:35am Mon 10 Mar 14

Drhysted says...

To be honest I would welcome paying VED on my bikes. For one thing it would shut all these flaming wingers up, secondly given my emissions the bikes would be in class A which would cost me £0, but the administration to set it up for all 4 bikes would cost the government.

In reality I'm saving other road users money. I'm paying VED for a car which spends most of it's time standing on private land, causing no wear and tear to the roads, and reducing congestion.
To be honest I would welcome paying VED on my bikes. For one thing it would shut all these flaming wingers up, secondly given my emissions the bikes would be in class A which would cost me £0, but the administration to set it up for all 4 bikes would cost the government. In reality I'm saving other road users money. I'm paying VED for a car which spends most of it's time standing on private land, causing no wear and tear to the roads, and reducing congestion. Drhysted
  • Score: 1

8:49am Mon 10 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax. camerajuan
  • Score: -1

10:22am Mon 10 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

I think nerdy cyclists who ride around filming motorists and then shouting at them in public should be banned. You know who you are, stop giving the rest of us cyclists a bad name.
I think nerdy cyclists who ride around filming motorists and then shouting at them in public should be banned. You know who you are, stop giving the rest of us cyclists a bad name. bigfella777
  • Score: 1

10:23am Mon 10 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.
Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc"
Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.[/p][/quote]Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc" Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

10:39am Mon 10 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

bigfella777 wrote:
I think nerdy cyclists who ride around filming motorists and then shouting at them in public should be banned. You know who you are, stop giving the rest of us cyclists a bad name.
I don't film motorists, I record my rides, 3 or 4 motorists just happen to do things that stick out and I only shout at them if they put my life in danger, like some daft cow in a black VW passat who overtook me with only millimeters to spare, just so she was the one who was at the front of the queue outside the bathroom place in Bitterne, such people should be banned, they're giving motorists a bad name.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: I think nerdy cyclists who ride around filming motorists and then shouting at them in public should be banned. You know who you are, stop giving the rest of us cyclists a bad name.[/p][/quote]I don't film motorists, I record my rides, 3 or 4 motorists just happen to do things that stick out and I only shout at them if they put my life in danger, like some daft cow in a black VW passat who overtook me with only millimeters to spare, just so she was the one who was at the front of the queue outside the bathroom place in Bitterne, such people should be banned, they're giving motorists a bad name. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

12:33pm Mon 10 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.
Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc"
Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.
Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax.

DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road.

Wake up.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.[/p][/quote]Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc" Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.[/p][/quote]Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax. DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road. Wake up. camerajuan
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Mon 10 Mar 14

ssnaked23 says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.
Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc"
Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.
Yes they called it a 'tax disc', its a vehicle licence tax disc thereby allowing the vehicle to be on the road and as said before applies to those which dont qualify for exemption. The operative word is 'licence' to quote definition:-
"permit, allow, authorize, grant/give a licence to, grant/give a permit to, grant/give authorization to, grant/give authority to, grant/give the right to, grant/give leave to, grant/give permission to;"
so its a permit to allow the use of the vehicle on the road, its not paying for the roads upkeep, which as we all know, dont we children, comes from local taxes i.e. council tax. Yes I agree the re are bad cyclists out there but so are there motorists. In a fight between both how car drivers have been killed or seriously injured? Im betting zero. Plus I've read through the posts and still trying to fathom out how the cyclist is getting something for free, what exactly is my question? Most people I see cycling are of working age which means they pay taxes, in all shapes and forms, of course before you jump, I realise students dont pay all but are still subjected to many and so these people are contributing to the upkeep of the roads infrastructure. There are so many bigoted people out there, take your blinkers off, get a bike and have a go out on the roads or is that would be too much effort and you're scared that drivers might run you off the road because you're 3 foot from the kerb or riding inside of them up to the lights.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.[/p][/quote]Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc" Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.[/p][/quote]Yes they called it a 'tax disc', its a vehicle licence tax disc thereby allowing the vehicle to be on the road and as said before applies to those which dont qualify for exemption. The operative word is 'licence' to quote definition:- "permit, allow, authorize, grant/give a licence to, grant/give a permit to, grant/give authorization to, grant/give authority to, grant/give the right to, grant/give leave to, grant/give permission to;" so its a permit to allow the use of the vehicle on the road, its not paying for the roads upkeep, which as we all know, dont we children, comes from local taxes i.e. council tax. Yes I agree the re are bad cyclists out there but so are there motorists. In a fight between both how car drivers have been killed or seriously injured? Im betting zero. Plus I've read through the posts and still trying to fathom out how the cyclist is getting something for free, what exactly is my question? Most people I see cycling are of working age which means they pay taxes, in all shapes and forms, of course before you jump, I realise students dont pay all but are still subjected to many and so these people are contributing to the upkeep of the roads infrastructure. There are so many bigoted people out there, take your blinkers off, get a bike and have a go out on the roads or is that would be too much effort and you're scared that drivers might run you off the road because you're 3 foot from the kerb or riding inside of them up to the lights. ssnaked23
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.
Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc"
Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.
Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax.

DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road.

Wake up.
I have to pay over £200 pa just to keep my car on the highway, whether I use it or not. You may not consider this to be a tax, but I do. However this does not give me the right to consider the roads to be mine just because I pay for the priviledge of using them. I consider my views to be average, neither in favour of one set of road users or another, to keep saying that the revenue I give to the exchequer every year is not a tax smells strongly of one sidedness on your part.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.[/p][/quote]Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc" Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.[/p][/quote]Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax. DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road. Wake up.[/p][/quote]I have to pay over £200 pa just to keep my car on the highway, whether I use it or not. You may not consider this to be a tax, but I do. However this does not give me the right to consider the roads to be mine just because I pay for the priviledge of using them. I consider my views to be average, neither in favour of one set of road users or another, to keep saying that the revenue I give to the exchequer every year is not a tax smells strongly of one sidedness on your part. Inform Al
  • Score: 1

1:38pm Mon 10 Mar 14

kiddynamite says...

All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!!
All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!! kiddynamite
  • Score: -6

1:40pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.
Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc"
Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.
Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax.

DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road.

Wake up.
Getting yourself tied up in knots again CJ.
Read any descriptive passage describing"excise duty",and you will find the word "tax",bandied about all over the place.
All Hiram was trying to point out was that in order to take a motor vehicle out on the road(leaving aside the proficiency,health,a
ge,registration,insu
rance and mechanical documentation required),one has to pay this excise duty..ergo"road tax".
At no point in his post,did he try to suggest that it wasn't a tax on emissions,or that it in any way,paid for the upkeep of the roads.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.[/p][/quote]Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc" Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.[/p][/quote]Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax. DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road. Wake up.[/p][/quote]Getting yourself tied up in knots again CJ. Read any descriptive passage describing"excise duty",and you will find the word "tax",bandied about all over the place. All Hiram was trying to point out was that in order to take a motor vehicle out on the road(leaving aside the proficiency,health,a ge,registration,insu rance and mechanical documentation required),one has to pay this excise duty..ergo"road tax". At no point in his post,did he try to suggest that it wasn't a tax on emissions,or that it in any way,paid for the upkeep of the roads. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Mon 10 Mar 14

kiddynamite says...

Mary80 wrote:
Road tax doesn't even EXIST and hasn't done since bloody 1937 i think some people need re educatiing
You know what they meant! This is the sort of pathetic remark i expect on here.
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Road tax doesn't even EXIST and hasn't done since bloody 1937 i think some people need re educatiing[/p][/quote]You know what they meant! This is the sort of pathetic remark i expect on here. kiddynamite
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Mon 10 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.
Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc"
Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.
Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax.

DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road.

Wake up.
I have to pay over £200 pa just to keep my car on the highway, whether I use it or not. You may not consider this to be a tax, but I do. However this does not give me the right to consider the roads to be mine just because I pay for the priviledge of using them. I consider my views to be average, neither in favour of one set of road users or another, to keep saying that the revenue I give to the exchequer every year is not a tax smells strongly of one sidedness on your part.
It's not about one sidedness, it's about facts. I know there are morons in control of all types of vehicles. I also know that all types of vehicles have equal usage rights to roads and therefore, the VED or colloquial(see irrelevant) "road tax" giving motorists priorities argument is invalid.

While we're on a similar topic, Ignorant Cyclists - please stop going down the new one way road at West Park Road leading to the station. It's a one way road, just go a little bit further along, cycle down past the Mayflower Theatre and you shall reach exactly the same place without breaking traffic laws.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.[/p][/quote]Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc" Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.[/p][/quote]Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax. DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road. Wake up.[/p][/quote]I have to pay over £200 pa just to keep my car on the highway, whether I use it or not. You may not consider this to be a tax, but I do. However this does not give me the right to consider the roads to be mine just because I pay for the priviledge of using them. I consider my views to be average, neither in favour of one set of road users or another, to keep saying that the revenue I give to the exchequer every year is not a tax smells strongly of one sidedness on your part.[/p][/quote]It's not about one sidedness, it's about facts. I know there are morons in control of all types of vehicles. I also know that all types of vehicles have equal usage rights to roads and therefore, the VED or colloquial(see irrelevant) "road tax" giving motorists priorities argument is invalid. While we're on a similar topic, Ignorant Cyclists - please stop going down the new one way road at West Park Road leading to the station. It's a one way road, just go a little bit further along, cycle down past the Mayflower Theatre and you shall reach exactly the same place without breaking traffic laws. camerajuan
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Mon 10 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.
Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc"
Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.
Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax.

DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road.

Wake up.
Getting yourself tied up in knots again CJ.
Read any descriptive passage describing"excise duty",and you will find the word "tax",bandied about all over the place.
All Hiram was trying to point out was that in order to take a motor vehicle out on the road(leaving aside the proficiency,health,a

ge,registration,insu

rance and mechanical documentation required),one has to pay this excise duty..ergo"road tax".
At no point in his post,did he try to suggest that it wasn't a tax on emissions,or that it in any way,paid for the upkeep of the roads.
Buuuuut, you CAN take motor vehicles out on the roads without one if they do not need one. Therefore, the entire argument surrounding whatever you want to call your little non-mandatory-depend
ing-on-emissions paper disc, despite what it is, is irrelevant, pointless, erroneous, worthless and a waste of time.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.[/p][/quote]Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc" Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.[/p][/quote]Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax. DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road. Wake up.[/p][/quote]Getting yourself tied up in knots again CJ. Read any descriptive passage describing"excise duty",and you will find the word "tax",bandied about all over the place. All Hiram was trying to point out was that in order to take a motor vehicle out on the road(leaving aside the proficiency,health,a ge,registration,insu rance and mechanical documentation required),one has to pay this excise duty..ergo"road tax". At no point in his post,did he try to suggest that it wasn't a tax on emissions,or that it in any way,paid for the upkeep of the roads.[/p][/quote]Buuuuut, you CAN take motor vehicles out on the roads without one if they do not need one. Therefore, the entire argument surrounding whatever you want to call your little non-mandatory-depend ing-on-emissions paper disc, despite what it is, is irrelevant, pointless, erroneous, worthless and a waste of time. camerajuan
  • Score: 3

3:01pm Mon 10 Mar 14

ssnaked23 says...

kiddynamite wrote:
All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!!
Typical comment from a car driving only person, using a generally tarring of all cyclists saying that we all ride dangerously and wear lycra and need to work harder to afford a car. I think you'll find that a lot of cyclists do own a car, I do for one and I cycle to stay fit, not because I cant afford a car. I suggest you wind your f!kking neck in with your moronic comment about shooting all cyclists, there certainly are a lot of drivers whom I think need educating in the rules of the road and many who seem to think they are above the law like there are many cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!![/p][/quote]Typical comment from a car driving only person, using a generally tarring of all cyclists saying that we all ride dangerously and wear lycra and need to work harder to afford a car. I think you'll find that a lot of cyclists do own a car, I do for one and I cycle to stay fit, not because I cant afford a car. I suggest you wind your f!kking neck in with your moronic comment about shooting all cyclists, there certainly are a lot of drivers whom I think need educating in the rules of the road and many who seem to think they are above the law like there are many cyclists. ssnaked23
  • Score: 6

3:08pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Hiram Abiff wrote:
Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax.

Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car!
But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT.
So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.
Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you.
Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).
We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.
Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc"
Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.
Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax.

DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road.

Wake up.
Getting yourself tied up in knots again CJ.
Read any descriptive passage describing"excise duty",and you will find the word "tax",bandied about all over the place.
All Hiram was trying to point out was that in order to take a motor vehicle out on the road(leaving aside the proficiency,health,a


ge,registration,insu


rance and mechanical documentation required),one has to pay this excise duty..ergo"road tax".
At no point in his post,did he try to suggest that it wasn't a tax on emissions,or that it in any way,paid for the upkeep of the roads.
Buuuuut, you CAN take motor vehicles out on the roads without one if they do not need one. Therefore, the entire argument surrounding whatever you want to call your little non-mandatory-depend

ing-on-emissions paper disc, despite what it is, is irrelevant, pointless, erroneous, worthless and a waste of time.
Read Hiram's post again;quote "Most of us...".
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hiram Abiff[/bold] wrote: Editor's note: Motorists do not pay road tax. Oh yes we do Mr Editor! Most of us pay over £100 per year to use a car on the road, which is a compulsory tax that has to be paid in advance before taking a car on the road. It is a tax, a road tax. It may not be called road tax but just as in the same way you call your refrigerator a fridge (which is a trade name) , your vacuum cleaner you call a hoover (trade name) or your ball point pen you call a biro (trade name). If you don't pay road tax then you are breaking the law in your car![/p][/quote]But it's NOT road tax, how many times does it have to be spelled out to you? There are a large number of VEHICLES that don't have VED paid on them yet it's LEGAL for them(not talking about those who should pay it but don't), these VEHICLES that I mention, are in VED band A, where they are EXEMPT from paying, like bicycles would be band A vehicles, hence would still be EXEMPT, some MOTOR VEHICLES are only EXEMPT for the first year, would you like me to provide a list of all these VED EXEMPT vehicles including the ones that are EXEMPT for the first year? Because it would be a VERY long list that would include anything registered before 1972, anything EXEMPT for the first year it's registered, anything that produces LESS than 100g/km of CO2, a number of goods and PCV's, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids(such as the Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar which produces a measly 70 -75g/km of CO2 from it's 3L V-8 making it a band A vehicle) or even human/animal powered vehicles are ALL VED EXEMPT. So please, next time, stay silent and thought an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt, like you just did, or better yet, do your homework on the subject.[/p][/quote]Splitting hairs,we all know exactly what he means, and so do you. Its what you pay for that little round paper disc,which(as he rightly says)without, you can't take a vehicle out on the road,and which as you very well know,is colloquially known as a ...TAX DISC !!! (Not a VED Disc).[/p][/quote]We all know exactly what he means doesn't change the fact that the "tax disc" doesn't contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Get this before you start dribbling again about the colloquial name for something and realise that VED duty has sod all to do with tax.[/p][/quote]Even the Echo called it a "Tax Disc" Hiram Abiff simply made a legitimate point...which you missed.[/p][/quote]Oh sod off seriously! He was attempting - like every uneducated caveman who uses this as a trump card does - to sway the arguement in his favour by stating the "tax" that he pays on his car - which doesn't exist - gives him more right over cyclists as they don't pay tax. DE got it wrong, and so does anyone when they call it that. It's not what it;s called, it's not what it's faor and it doesn't entitle motorists to claim the road. Wake up.[/p][/quote]Getting yourself tied up in knots again CJ. Read any descriptive passage describing"excise duty",and you will find the word "tax",bandied about all over the place. All Hiram was trying to point out was that in order to take a motor vehicle out on the road(leaving aside the proficiency,health,a ge,registration,insu rance and mechanical documentation required),one has to pay this excise duty..ergo"road tax". At no point in his post,did he try to suggest that it wasn't a tax on emissions,or that it in any way,paid for the upkeep of the roads.[/p][/quote]Buuuuut, you CAN take motor vehicles out on the roads without one if they do not need one. Therefore, the entire argument surrounding whatever you want to call your little non-mandatory-depend ing-on-emissions paper disc, despite what it is, is irrelevant, pointless, erroneous, worthless and a waste of time.[/p][/quote]Read Hiram's post again;quote "Most of us...". Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

kiddynamite wrote:
All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!!
Road tax hasn't existed since 1937, also, what about the hundreds or more likely thousands of motor vehicles that LEGALLY don't have to pay? Should they be lined up and shot as well, bike insurance is too cheap to price, hence it's normally lumped in with home and contents insurance or given away with memberships to things like British Cycling, most of us ride safely, the lycra does actually serve a purpose, it reduces the chance of injury because rather than fabric rubbing on flesh, it's fabric on fabric, most cyclists already own at LEAST one car, we're less likely to take days off work, most earn more on average than those who drive and as for lining us up to be shot, would you be including CHILDREN in that?
Motorists always complain about others, especially cycists holding them up, even in heavy traffic when it's quite obvious that it's the MOTORISTS that are the problem.
Like cyclists have said since last week...
GET FITTER, GET A BIKE!!!
[quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!![/p][/quote]Road tax hasn't existed since 1937, also, what about the hundreds or more likely thousands of motor vehicles that LEGALLY don't have to pay? Should they be lined up and shot as well, bike insurance is too cheap to price, hence it's normally lumped in with home and contents insurance or given away with memberships to things like British Cycling, most of us ride safely, the lycra does actually serve a purpose, it reduces the chance of injury because rather than fabric rubbing on flesh, it's fabric on fabric, most cyclists already own at LEAST one car, we're less likely to take days off work, most earn more on average than those who drive and as for lining us up to be shot, would you be including CHILDREN in that? Motorists always complain about others, especially cycists holding them up, even in heavy traffic when it's quite obvious that it's the MOTORISTS that are the problem. Like cyclists have said since last week... GET FITTER, GET A BIKE!!! Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

4:37pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
kiddynamite wrote:
All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!!
Road tax hasn't existed since 1937, also, what about the hundreds or more likely thousands of motor vehicles that LEGALLY don't have to pay? Should they be lined up and shot as well, bike insurance is too cheap to price, hence it's normally lumped in with home and contents insurance or given away with memberships to things like British Cycling, most of us ride safely, the lycra does actually serve a purpose, it reduces the chance of injury because rather than fabric rubbing on flesh, it's fabric on fabric, most cyclists already own at LEAST one car, we're less likely to take days off work, most earn more on average than those who drive and as for lining us up to be shot, would you be including CHILDREN in that?
Motorists always complain about others, especially cycists holding them up, even in heavy traffic when it's quite obvious that it's the MOTORISTS that are the problem.
Like cyclists have said since last week...
GET FITTER, GET A BIKE!!!
Who's defending the right of motorists using cars they don't have to pay various taxes for?
Nobody is saying that's right,as far as I can see.
Another loophole that needs to be filled,(like cycling,)is the rule about MOT's for cars under 3 years old.
Any vehicle could get defective tyres,windscreens,li
ghts,emissions,two minutes after leaving the show rooms, and yet could legally be driving round in defective condition for the next 3 years!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!![/p][/quote]Road tax hasn't existed since 1937, also, what about the hundreds or more likely thousands of motor vehicles that LEGALLY don't have to pay? Should they be lined up and shot as well, bike insurance is too cheap to price, hence it's normally lumped in with home and contents insurance or given away with memberships to things like British Cycling, most of us ride safely, the lycra does actually serve a purpose, it reduces the chance of injury because rather than fabric rubbing on flesh, it's fabric on fabric, most cyclists already own at LEAST one car, we're less likely to take days off work, most earn more on average than those who drive and as for lining us up to be shot, would you be including CHILDREN in that? Motorists always complain about others, especially cycists holding them up, even in heavy traffic when it's quite obvious that it's the MOTORISTS that are the problem. Like cyclists have said since last week... GET FITTER, GET A BIKE!!![/p][/quote]Who's defending the right of motorists using cars they don't have to pay various taxes for? Nobody is saying that's right,as far as I can see. Another loophole that needs to be filled,(like cycling,)is the rule about MOT's for cars under 3 years old. Any vehicle could get defective tyres,windscreens,li ghts,emissions,two minutes after leaving the show rooms, and yet could legally be driving round in defective condition for the next 3 years! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

4:58pm Mon 10 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
kiddynamite wrote:
All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!!
Road tax hasn't existed since 1937, also, what about the hundreds or more likely thousands of motor vehicles that LEGALLY don't have to pay? Should they be lined up and shot as well, bike insurance is too cheap to price, hence it's normally lumped in with home and contents insurance or given away with memberships to things like British Cycling, most of us ride safely, the lycra does actually serve a purpose, it reduces the chance of injury because rather than fabric rubbing on flesh, it's fabric on fabric, most cyclists already own at LEAST one car, we're less likely to take days off work, most earn more on average than those who drive and as for lining us up to be shot, would you be including CHILDREN in that?
Motorists always complain about others, especially cycists holding them up, even in heavy traffic when it's quite obvious that it's the MOTORISTS that are the problem.
Like cyclists have said since last week...
GET FITTER, GET A BIKE!!!
Who's defending the right of motorists using cars they don't have to pay various taxes for?
Nobody is saying that's right,as far as I can see.
Another loophole that needs to be filled,(like cycling,)is the rule about MOT's for cars under 3 years old.
Any vehicle could get defective tyres,windscreens,li

ghts,emissions,two minutes after leaving the show rooms, and yet could legally be driving round in defective condition for the next 3 years!
Here you go again, what loophole?!?! What is this magical loophole that only cyclists benefit from?

Case and point from original letter - Cyclists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Motorists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Both pay, both use the road. Paper disc in the window has nothing to do with it, regardless of what you call it or what you class it as. Fact is, it doesn't give you privileged access.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!![/p][/quote]Road tax hasn't existed since 1937, also, what about the hundreds or more likely thousands of motor vehicles that LEGALLY don't have to pay? Should they be lined up and shot as well, bike insurance is too cheap to price, hence it's normally lumped in with home and contents insurance or given away with memberships to things like British Cycling, most of us ride safely, the lycra does actually serve a purpose, it reduces the chance of injury because rather than fabric rubbing on flesh, it's fabric on fabric, most cyclists already own at LEAST one car, we're less likely to take days off work, most earn more on average than those who drive and as for lining us up to be shot, would you be including CHILDREN in that? Motorists always complain about others, especially cycists holding them up, even in heavy traffic when it's quite obvious that it's the MOTORISTS that are the problem. Like cyclists have said since last week... GET FITTER, GET A BIKE!!![/p][/quote]Who's defending the right of motorists using cars they don't have to pay various taxes for? Nobody is saying that's right,as far as I can see. Another loophole that needs to be filled,(like cycling,)is the rule about MOT's for cars under 3 years old. Any vehicle could get defective tyres,windscreens,li ghts,emissions,two minutes after leaving the show rooms, and yet could legally be driving round in defective condition for the next 3 years![/p][/quote]Here you go again, what loophole?!?! What is this magical loophole that only cyclists benefit from? Case and point from original letter - Cyclists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Motorists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Both pay, both use the road. Paper disc in the window has nothing to do with it, regardless of what you call it or what you class it as. Fact is, it doesn't give you privileged access. camerajuan
  • Score: 4

5:03pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-Graham says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G

raham
wrote:
I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back.
'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities.
This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it.
PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!!
Most posters who come on here are not against cycling per se,I'm not,in fact I'm just about to dig my old bike out,having just moved and get it serviced and overhauled,and start riding again,after a gap of about twenty five years.
What most people are concerned about,is that at the moment,its completely unregulated in that it allows anyone from say,a twelve year old who has no sense or knowledge of the rules of the road(or any other person completely untested) to an eighty year old with advanced angina,to just jump on a bike,and start riding down a public highway.
From a public safety point of view,that's just not acceptable,and is a loophole which needs tightening up,and yes,maybe in the form of some kind of officially recognised and documented testing,and identifiable registration.
So what's so wrong with people exercising their basic human right of travel not being "regulated"?
Yes, some kiddiewinkie may ride into the path of a car transporter in deepest Portswood tomorrow and die - it's a long shot, admittedly, but life is all ABOUT risks.
Yes, some angina-ridden chap might collapse and die in mid-pedalling frenzy in Shirley high street tomorrow and cause a prang that results in the death of a highly photogenic young blonde girl which the Echo can splash upon their front page with the accompanying "why oh why" editorial drivel, but hey - that's life - and life is all about risks.
You and me might be struck down by lightning tomorrow whilst sitting on the toilet.
That's tough.
It's a risk we take.
Stop trying to restrict people's basic freedoms and civil liberties, Mr Tory - you're so transparent, it's almost embarrassing.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G raham[/bold] wrote: I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back. 'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities. This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it. PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!![/p][/quote]Most posters who come on here are not against cycling per se,I'm not,in fact I'm just about to dig my old bike out,having just moved and get it serviced and overhauled,and start riding again,after a gap of about twenty five years. What most people are concerned about,is that at the moment,its completely unregulated in that it allows anyone from say,a twelve year old who has no sense or knowledge of the rules of the road(or any other person completely untested) to an eighty year old with advanced angina,to just jump on a bike,and start riding down a public highway. From a public safety point of view,that's just not acceptable,and is a loophole which needs tightening up,and yes,maybe in the form of some kind of officially recognised and documented testing,and identifiable registration.[/p][/quote]So what's so wrong with people exercising their basic human right of travel not being "regulated"? Yes, some kiddiewinkie may ride into the path of a car transporter in deepest Portswood tomorrow and die - it's a long shot, admittedly, but life is all ABOUT risks. Yes, some angina-ridden chap might collapse and die in mid-pedalling frenzy in Shirley high street tomorrow and cause a prang that results in the death of a highly photogenic young blonde girl which the Echo can splash upon their front page with the accompanying "why oh why" editorial drivel, but hey - that's life - and life is all about risks. You and me might be struck down by lightning tomorrow whilst sitting on the toilet. That's tough. It's a risk we take. Stop trying to restrict people's basic freedoms and civil liberties, Mr Tory - you're so transparent, it's almost embarrassing. Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-Graham
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G
raham
wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G


raham
wrote:
I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back.
'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities.
This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it.
PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!!
Most posters who come on here are not against cycling per se,I'm not,in fact I'm just about to dig my old bike out,having just moved and get it serviced and overhauled,and start riding again,after a gap of about twenty five years.
What most people are concerned about,is that at the moment,its completely unregulated in that it allows anyone from say,a twelve year old who has no sense or knowledge of the rules of the road(or any other person completely untested) to an eighty year old with advanced angina,to just jump on a bike,and start riding down a public highway.
From a public safety point of view,that's just not acceptable,and is a loophole which needs tightening up,and yes,maybe in the form of some kind of officially recognised and documented testing,and identifiable registration.
So what's so wrong with people exercising their basic human right of travel not being "regulated"?
Yes, some kiddiewinkie may ride into the path of a car transporter in deepest Portswood tomorrow and die - it's a long shot, admittedly, but life is all ABOUT risks.
Yes, some angina-ridden chap might collapse and die in mid-pedalling frenzy in Shirley high street tomorrow and cause a prang that results in the death of a highly photogenic young blonde girl which the Echo can splash upon their front page with the accompanying "why oh why" editorial drivel, but hey - that's life - and life is all about risks.
You and me might be struck down by lightning tomorrow whilst sitting on the toilet.
That's tough.
It's a risk we take.
Stop trying to restrict people's basic freedoms and civil liberties, Mr Tory - you're so transparent, it's almost embarrassing.
Ha ha! Monster Raving Looney actually,and I don't dispute anything you say,its all perfectly correct,I like you,am of the Eclesiates school of philosophy.
But at the end of the day,its all about fairness,and right now when you have one set of road users(motorists)who are undeniably being overcharged for what you so rightly say,is a basic human right ,who perceive (rightly or wrongly..the arguments will go on)that another group appear to be undercharged for the same activity,then it is human nature( humans being selfish by nature)for there to be some animosity.
[quote][p][bold]Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G raham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G raham[/bold] wrote: I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back. 'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities. This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it. PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!![/p][/quote]Most posters who come on here are not against cycling per se,I'm not,in fact I'm just about to dig my old bike out,having just moved and get it serviced and overhauled,and start riding again,after a gap of about twenty five years. What most people are concerned about,is that at the moment,its completely unregulated in that it allows anyone from say,a twelve year old who has no sense or knowledge of the rules of the road(or any other person completely untested) to an eighty year old with advanced angina,to just jump on a bike,and start riding down a public highway. From a public safety point of view,that's just not acceptable,and is a loophole which needs tightening up,and yes,maybe in the form of some kind of officially recognised and documented testing,and identifiable registration.[/p][/quote]So what's so wrong with people exercising their basic human right of travel not being "regulated"? Yes, some kiddiewinkie may ride into the path of a car transporter in deepest Portswood tomorrow and die - it's a long shot, admittedly, but life is all ABOUT risks. Yes, some angina-ridden chap might collapse and die in mid-pedalling frenzy in Shirley high street tomorrow and cause a prang that results in the death of a highly photogenic young blonde girl which the Echo can splash upon their front page with the accompanying "why oh why" editorial drivel, but hey - that's life - and life is all about risks. You and me might be struck down by lightning tomorrow whilst sitting on the toilet. That's tough. It's a risk we take. Stop trying to restrict people's basic freedoms and civil liberties, Mr Tory - you're so transparent, it's almost embarrassing.[/p][/quote]Ha ha! Monster Raving Looney actually,and I don't dispute anything you say,its all perfectly correct,I like you,am of the Eclesiates school of philosophy. But at the end of the day,its all about fairness,and right now when you have one set of road users(motorists)who are undeniably being overcharged for what you so rightly say,is a basic human right ,who perceive (rightly or wrongly..the arguments will go on)that another group appear to be undercharged for the same activity,then it is human nature( humans being selfish by nature)for there to be some animosity. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G

raham
wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G



raham
wrote:
I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back.
'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities.
This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it.
PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!!
Most posters who come on here are not against cycling per se,I'm not,in fact I'm just about to dig my old bike out,having just moved and get it serviced and overhauled,and start riding again,after a gap of about twenty five years.
What most people are concerned about,is that at the moment,its completely unregulated in that it allows anyone from say,a twelve year old who has no sense or knowledge of the rules of the road(or any other person completely untested) to an eighty year old with advanced angina,to just jump on a bike,and start riding down a public highway.
From a public safety point of view,that's just not acceptable,and is a loophole which needs tightening up,and yes,maybe in the form of some kind of officially recognised and documented testing,and identifiable registration.
So what's so wrong with people exercising their basic human right of travel not being "regulated"?
Yes, some kiddiewinkie may ride into the path of a car transporter in deepest Portswood tomorrow and die - it's a long shot, admittedly, but life is all ABOUT risks.
Yes, some angina-ridden chap might collapse and die in mid-pedalling frenzy in Shirley high street tomorrow and cause a prang that results in the death of a highly photogenic young blonde girl which the Echo can splash upon their front page with the accompanying "why oh why" editorial drivel, but hey - that's life - and life is all about risks.
You and me might be struck down by lightning tomorrow whilst sitting on the toilet.
That's tough.
It's a risk we take.
Stop trying to restrict people's basic freedoms and civil liberties, Mr Tory - you're so transparent, it's almost embarrassing.
Ha ha! Monster Raving Looney actually,and I don't dispute anything you say,its all perfectly correct,I like you,am of the Eclesiates school of philosophy.
But at the end of the day,its all about fairness,and right now when you have one set of road users(motorists)who are undeniably being overcharged for what you so rightly say,is a basic human right ,who perceive (rightly or wrongly..the arguments will go on)that another group appear to be undercharged for the same activity,then it is human nature( humans being selfish by nature)for there to be some animosity.
Driving a car is NOT a right, it's a privilege.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G raham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G raham[/bold] wrote: I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back. 'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities. This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it. PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!![/p][/quote]Most posters who come on here are not against cycling per se,I'm not,in fact I'm just about to dig my old bike out,having just moved and get it serviced and overhauled,and start riding again,after a gap of about twenty five years. What most people are concerned about,is that at the moment,its completely unregulated in that it allows anyone from say,a twelve year old who has no sense or knowledge of the rules of the road(or any other person completely untested) to an eighty year old with advanced angina,to just jump on a bike,and start riding down a public highway. From a public safety point of view,that's just not acceptable,and is a loophole which needs tightening up,and yes,maybe in the form of some kind of officially recognised and documented testing,and identifiable registration.[/p][/quote]So what's so wrong with people exercising their basic human right of travel not being "regulated"? Yes, some kiddiewinkie may ride into the path of a car transporter in deepest Portswood tomorrow and die - it's a long shot, admittedly, but life is all ABOUT risks. Yes, some angina-ridden chap might collapse and die in mid-pedalling frenzy in Shirley high street tomorrow and cause a prang that results in the death of a highly photogenic young blonde girl which the Echo can splash upon their front page with the accompanying "why oh why" editorial drivel, but hey - that's life - and life is all about risks. You and me might be struck down by lightning tomorrow whilst sitting on the toilet. That's tough. It's a risk we take. Stop trying to restrict people's basic freedoms and civil liberties, Mr Tory - you're so transparent, it's almost embarrassing.[/p][/quote]Ha ha! Monster Raving Looney actually,and I don't dispute anything you say,its all perfectly correct,I like you,am of the Eclesiates school of philosophy. But at the end of the day,its all about fairness,and right now when you have one set of road users(motorists)who are undeniably being overcharged for what you so rightly say,is a basic human right ,who perceive (rightly or wrongly..the arguments will go on)that another group appear to be undercharged for the same activity,then it is human nature( humans being selfish by nature)for there to be some animosity.[/p][/quote]Driving a car is NOT a right, it's a privilege. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

5:53pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G


raham
wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G




raham
wrote:
I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back.
'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities.
This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it.
PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!!
Most posters who come on here are not against cycling per se,I'm not,in fact I'm just about to dig my old bike out,having just moved and get it serviced and overhauled,and start riding again,after a gap of about twenty five years.
What most people are concerned about,is that at the moment,its completely unregulated in that it allows anyone from say,a twelve year old who has no sense or knowledge of the rules of the road(or any other person completely untested) to an eighty year old with advanced angina,to just jump on a bike,and start riding down a public highway.
From a public safety point of view,that's just not acceptable,and is a loophole which needs tightening up,and yes,maybe in the form of some kind of officially recognised and documented testing,and identifiable registration.
So what's so wrong with people exercising their basic human right of travel not being "regulated"?
Yes, some kiddiewinkie may ride into the path of a car transporter in deepest Portswood tomorrow and die - it's a long shot, admittedly, but life is all ABOUT risks.
Yes, some angina-ridden chap might collapse and die in mid-pedalling frenzy in Shirley high street tomorrow and cause a prang that results in the death of a highly photogenic young blonde girl which the Echo can splash upon their front page with the accompanying "why oh why" editorial drivel, but hey - that's life - and life is all about risks.
You and me might be struck down by lightning tomorrow whilst sitting on the toilet.
That's tough.
It's a risk we take.
Stop trying to restrict people's basic freedoms and civil liberties, Mr Tory - you're so transparent, it's almost embarrassing.
Ha ha! Monster Raving Looney actually,and I don't dispute anything you say,its all perfectly correct,I like you,am of the Eclesiates school of philosophy.
But at the end of the day,its all about fairness,and right now when you have one set of road users(motorists)who are undeniably being overcharged for what you so rightly say,is a basic human right ,who perceive (rightly or wrongly..the arguments will go on)that another group appear to be undercharged for the same activity,then it is human nature( humans being selfish by nature)for there to be some animosity.
Driving a car is NOT a right, it's a privilege.
Absolutely Ginge!! ;0)
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G raham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G raham[/bold] wrote: I've no doubt there are those in 'government' who'd like to tax every cycle at a rate of, say, £25 per annum. With revenue from petrol and tobacco declining rapidly, it would be a nice little new cash cow to fund their dirty, illegal little wars on behalf of Israhell, America and the EU against countries which can't fight back. 'Governments' like nothing more than an opportunity to 1) turn the lower classes against one another and 2) fleece us for more cash to perpetuate their atrocities. This whole argument is a Godsend to them. Don't fall for it. PS - I'm NOT a cyclist, just someone who can see through mean-spirited and petty tripe like that published by the starter of this topic!![/p][/quote]Most posters who come on here are not against cycling per se,I'm not,in fact I'm just about to dig my old bike out,having just moved and get it serviced and overhauled,and start riding again,after a gap of about twenty five years. What most people are concerned about,is that at the moment,its completely unregulated in that it allows anyone from say,a twelve year old who has no sense or knowledge of the rules of the road(or any other person completely untested) to an eighty year old with advanced angina,to just jump on a bike,and start riding down a public highway. From a public safety point of view,that's just not acceptable,and is a loophole which needs tightening up,and yes,maybe in the form of some kind of officially recognised and documented testing,and identifiable registration.[/p][/quote]So what's so wrong with people exercising their basic human right of travel not being "regulated"? Yes, some kiddiewinkie may ride into the path of a car transporter in deepest Portswood tomorrow and die - it's a long shot, admittedly, but life is all ABOUT risks. Yes, some angina-ridden chap might collapse and die in mid-pedalling frenzy in Shirley high street tomorrow and cause a prang that results in the death of a highly photogenic young blonde girl which the Echo can splash upon their front page with the accompanying "why oh why" editorial drivel, but hey - that's life - and life is all about risks. You and me might be struck down by lightning tomorrow whilst sitting on the toilet. That's tough. It's a risk we take. Stop trying to restrict people's basic freedoms and civil liberties, Mr Tory - you're so transparent, it's almost embarrassing.[/p][/quote]Ha ha! Monster Raving Looney actually,and I don't dispute anything you say,its all perfectly correct,I like you,am of the Eclesiates school of philosophy. But at the end of the day,its all about fairness,and right now when you have one set of road users(motorists)who are undeniably being overcharged for what you so rightly say,is a basic human right ,who perceive (rightly or wrongly..the arguments will go on)that another group appear to be undercharged for the same activity,then it is human nature( humans being selfish by nature)for there to be some animosity.[/p][/quote]Driving a car is NOT a right, it's a privilege.[/p][/quote]Absolutely Ginge!! ;0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Drhysted says...

kiddynamite wrote:
All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!!
Yep you're right I don't pay road tax (it was scrapped before I was born). I do however pay VED, I also have all my vehicles both motorised and human powered insured, I also am licensed to use the roads in a variety of both 4 wheeled, and two wheeled vehicles (including towing).

Lycra is a technical material it's used by cyclists for what it was designed to do, not to make us look great (although the cleaners at work have expressed joy at my muscular legs, real shame about the upper half).

Last week was a bit light on work, I only clocked 72 hours. I already have a car, in fact a few years back I had a couple of cars, but weren't using them much so dropped to one car for when I need it.

Please don't try with the "I've seen worse road use" with a cyclist. The cyclist will win, because unlike car drivers that see a hand full of bad cyclists, cyclists only see a hand full of good drivers.
[quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!![/p][/quote]Yep you're right I don't pay road tax (it was scrapped before I was born). I do however pay VED, I also have all my vehicles both motorised and human powered insured, I also am licensed to use the roads in a variety of both 4 wheeled, and two wheeled vehicles (including towing). Lycra is a technical material it's used by cyclists for what it was designed to do, not to make us look great (although the cleaners at work have expressed joy at my muscular legs, real shame about the upper half). Last week was a bit light on work, I only clocked 72 hours. I already have a car, in fact a few years back I had a couple of cars, but weren't using them much so dropped to one car for when I need it. Please don't try with the "I've seen worse road use" with a cyclist. The cyclist will win, because unlike car drivers that see a hand full of bad cyclists, cyclists only see a hand full of good drivers. Drhysted
  • Score: 2

6:04pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Drhysted says...

kiddynamite wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Road tax doesn't even EXIST and hasn't done since bloody 1937 i think some people need re educatiing
You know what they meant! This is the sort of pathetic remark i expect on here.
What you mean you expect someone to quote facts!!

Shocking
[quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Road tax doesn't even EXIST and hasn't done since bloody 1937 i think some people need re educatiing[/p][/quote]You know what they meant! This is the sort of pathetic remark i expect on here.[/p][/quote]What you mean you expect someone to quote facts!! Shocking Drhysted
  • Score: 2

7:07pm Mon 10 Mar 14

LucieLocket says...

kiddynamite wrote:
All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!!
I am a girl and today my ride to work was completed in a skirt, tights (which admittedly probably have lycra in them), boots, etc, etc. I own a car on which I pay tax (VED blah blah - "car tax" in our house) and insurance. I admit, I don't have insurance for my bike. I ride my bike using the same rules as when I'm driving my car. I have two jobs..... I *think* I work hard and I own a car.

Do I still get shot?
[quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!![/p][/quote]I am a girl and today my ride to work was completed in a skirt, tights (which admittedly probably have lycra in them), boots, etc, etc. I own a car on which I pay tax (VED blah blah - "car tax" in our house) and insurance. I admit, I don't have insurance for my bike. I ride my bike using the same rules as when I'm driving my car. I have two jobs..... I *think* I work hard and I own a car. Do I still get shot? LucieLocket
  • Score: 3

7:14pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

LucieLocket wrote:
kiddynamite wrote:
All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!!
I am a girl and today my ride to work was completed in a skirt, tights (which admittedly probably have lycra in them), boots, etc, etc. I own a car on which I pay tax (VED blah blah - "car tax" in our house) and insurance. I admit, I don't have insurance for my bike. I ride my bike using the same rules as when I'm driving my car. I have two jobs..... I *think* I work hard and I own a car.

Do I still get shot?
If you have home and contents insurance, ask the company you use, about wether or not your policy includes third party cycle insurance, it's likely that it does and would mean that as a cyclist, you're insured. :)
[quote][p][bold]LucieLocket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!![/p][/quote]I am a girl and today my ride to work was completed in a skirt, tights (which admittedly probably have lycra in them), boots, etc, etc. I own a car on which I pay tax (VED blah blah - "car tax" in our house) and insurance. I admit, I don't have insurance for my bike. I ride my bike using the same rules as when I'm driving my car. I have two jobs..... I *think* I work hard and I own a car. Do I still get shot?[/p][/quote]If you have home and contents insurance, ask the company you use, about wether or not your policy includes third party cycle insurance, it's likely that it does and would mean that as a cyclist, you're insured. :) Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

9:11am Tue 11 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

LucieLocket wrote:
kiddynamite wrote:
All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!!
I am a girl and today my ride to work was completed in a skirt, tights (which admittedly probably have lycra in them), boots, etc, etc. I own a car on which I pay tax (VED blah blah - "car tax" in our house) and insurance. I admit, I don't have insurance for my bike. I ride my bike using the same rules as when I'm driving my car. I have two jobs..... I *think* I work hard and I own a car.

Do I still get shot?
Nah, you're ok. As the kiddy said, if you don't pay "road tax" & insurance you get shot. You do (council tax, pays for roads), so you're fine.

The kiddy seems to think that only children should wear lycra also. Slightly creepy statement and one I'm sure many parents would disagree with. As well as millions of competitive sports people across the world including a 24 yr old MACHINE from Teeside who just won the World Indoor 60m Championship, which should be celebrated as one of the only Englishmen likely to lift a World Title this year.
[quote][p][bold]LucieLocket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!![/p][/quote]I am a girl and today my ride to work was completed in a skirt, tights (which admittedly probably have lycra in them), boots, etc, etc. I own a car on which I pay tax (VED blah blah - "car tax" in our house) and insurance. I admit, I don't have insurance for my bike. I ride my bike using the same rules as when I'm driving my car. I have two jobs..... I *think* I work hard and I own a car. Do I still get shot?[/p][/quote]Nah, you're ok. As the kiddy said, if you don't pay "road tax" & insurance you get shot. You do (council tax, pays for roads), so you're fine. The kiddy seems to think that only children should wear lycra also. Slightly creepy statement and one I'm sure many parents would disagree with. As well as millions of competitive sports people across the world including a 24 yr old MACHINE from Teeside who just won the World Indoor 60m Championship, which should be celebrated as one of the only Englishmen likely to lift a World Title this year. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

1:52pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Ninjaaa says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
kiddynamite wrote:
All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!!
Road tax hasn't existed since 1937, also, what about the hundreds or more likely thousands of motor vehicles that LEGALLY don't have to pay? Should they be lined up and shot as well, bike insurance is too cheap to price, hence it's normally lumped in with home and contents insurance or given away with memberships to things like British Cycling, most of us ride safely, the lycra does actually serve a purpose, it reduces the chance of injury because rather than fabric rubbing on flesh, it's fabric on fabric, most cyclists already own at LEAST one car, we're less likely to take days off work, most earn more on average than those who drive and as for lining us up to be shot, would you be including CHILDREN in that?
Motorists always complain about others, especially cycists holding them up, even in heavy traffic when it's quite obvious that it's the MOTORISTS that are the problem.
Like cyclists have said since last week...
GET FITTER, GET A BIKE!!!
Who's defending the right of motorists using cars they don't have to pay various taxes for?
Nobody is saying that's right,as far as I can see.
Another loophole that needs to be filled,(like cycling,)is the rule about MOT's for cars under 3 years old.
Any vehicle could get defective tyres,windscreens,li


ghts,emissions,two minutes after leaving the show rooms, and yet could legally be driving round in defective condition for the next 3 years!
Here you go again, what loophole?!?! What is this magical loophole that only cyclists benefit from?

Case and point from original letter - Cyclists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Motorists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Both pay, both use the road. Paper disc in the window has nothing to do with it, regardless of what you call it or what you class it as. Fact is, it doesn't give you privileged access.
So what do you think those round paper "tax" disc pay for exactly?
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!![/p][/quote]Road tax hasn't existed since 1937, also, what about the hundreds or more likely thousands of motor vehicles that LEGALLY don't have to pay? Should they be lined up and shot as well, bike insurance is too cheap to price, hence it's normally lumped in with home and contents insurance or given away with memberships to things like British Cycling, most of us ride safely, the lycra does actually serve a purpose, it reduces the chance of injury because rather than fabric rubbing on flesh, it's fabric on fabric, most cyclists already own at LEAST one car, we're less likely to take days off work, most earn more on average than those who drive and as for lining us up to be shot, would you be including CHILDREN in that? Motorists always complain about others, especially cycists holding them up, even in heavy traffic when it's quite obvious that it's the MOTORISTS that are the problem. Like cyclists have said since last week... GET FITTER, GET A BIKE!!![/p][/quote]Who's defending the right of motorists using cars they don't have to pay various taxes for? Nobody is saying that's right,as far as I can see. Another loophole that needs to be filled,(like cycling,)is the rule about MOT's for cars under 3 years old. Any vehicle could get defective tyres,windscreens,li ghts,emissions,two minutes after leaving the show rooms, and yet could legally be driving round in defective condition for the next 3 years![/p][/quote]Here you go again, what loophole?!?! What is this magical loophole that only cyclists benefit from? Case and point from original letter - Cyclists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Motorists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Both pay, both use the road. Paper disc in the window has nothing to do with it, regardless of what you call it or what you class it as. Fact is, it doesn't give you privileged access.[/p][/quote]So what do you think those round paper "tax" disc pay for exactly? Ninjaaa
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Tue 11 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Ninjaaa wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
kiddynamite wrote:
All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!!
Road tax hasn't existed since 1937, also, what about the hundreds or more likely thousands of motor vehicles that LEGALLY don't have to pay? Should they be lined up and shot as well, bike insurance is too cheap to price, hence it's normally lumped in with home and contents insurance or given away with memberships to things like British Cycling, most of us ride safely, the lycra does actually serve a purpose, it reduces the chance of injury because rather than fabric rubbing on flesh, it's fabric on fabric, most cyclists already own at LEAST one car, we're less likely to take days off work, most earn more on average than those who drive and as for lining us up to be shot, would you be including CHILDREN in that?
Motorists always complain about others, especially cycists holding them up, even in heavy traffic when it's quite obvious that it's the MOTORISTS that are the problem.
Like cyclists have said since last week...
GET FITTER, GET A BIKE!!!
Who's defending the right of motorists using cars they don't have to pay various taxes for?
Nobody is saying that's right,as far as I can see.
Another loophole that needs to be filled,(like cycling,)is the rule about MOT's for cars under 3 years old.
Any vehicle could get defective tyres,windscreens,li



ghts,emissions,two minutes after leaving the show rooms, and yet could legally be driving round in defective condition for the next 3 years!
Here you go again, what loophole?!?! What is this magical loophole that only cyclists benefit from?

Case and point from original letter - Cyclists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Motorists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Both pay, both use the road. Paper disc in the window has nothing to do with it, regardless of what you call it or what you class it as. Fact is, it doesn't give you privileged access.
So what do you think those round paper "tax" disc pay for exactly?
Oh good god another one!

Those round paper discs symbolise that the vehicle it inhabits is due to pay, and has paid for, a certain amount of VED, which has been covered multiple times. Cars like the aforementioned Porsche Spyder HyperCar is not liable to pay due to the low emissions.
[quote][p][bold]Ninjaaa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be lined up and shot! And grown men in skin tight Lycra Grow up! you look pathetic. You pay no road tax or insurance so you shouldn't be allowed to use our roads.You all ride in a dangerous manner then you whine like f@ck when one of you gets knocked off. As Top gear said last week WORK HARDER BUY A CAR!!!![/p][/quote]Road tax hasn't existed since 1937, also, what about the hundreds or more likely thousands of motor vehicles that LEGALLY don't have to pay? Should they be lined up and shot as well, bike insurance is too cheap to price, hence it's normally lumped in with home and contents insurance or given away with memberships to things like British Cycling, most of us ride safely, the lycra does actually serve a purpose, it reduces the chance of injury because rather than fabric rubbing on flesh, it's fabric on fabric, most cyclists already own at LEAST one car, we're less likely to take days off work, most earn more on average than those who drive and as for lining us up to be shot, would you be including CHILDREN in that? Motorists always complain about others, especially cycists holding them up, even in heavy traffic when it's quite obvious that it's the MOTORISTS that are the problem. Like cyclists have said since last week... GET FITTER, GET A BIKE!!![/p][/quote]Who's defending the right of motorists using cars they don't have to pay various taxes for? Nobody is saying that's right,as far as I can see. Another loophole that needs to be filled,(like cycling,)is the rule about MOT's for cars under 3 years old. Any vehicle could get defective tyres,windscreens,li ghts,emissions,two minutes after leaving the show rooms, and yet could legally be driving round in defective condition for the next 3 years![/p][/quote]Here you go again, what loophole?!?! What is this magical loophole that only cyclists benefit from? Case and point from original letter - Cyclists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Motorists who pay council tax, in effect pay road tax. Both pay, both use the road. Paper disc in the window has nothing to do with it, regardless of what you call it or what you class it as. Fact is, it doesn't give you privileged access.[/p][/quote]So what do you think those round paper "tax" disc pay for exactly?[/p][/quote]Oh good god another one! Those round paper discs symbolise that the vehicle it inhabits is due to pay, and has paid for, a certain amount of VED, which has been covered multiple times. Cars like the aforementioned Porsche Spyder HyperCar is not liable to pay due to the low emissions. camerajuan
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year.


The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over.


The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes.


Yeah.. bring on the fees..



,,,
Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.
Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon?


Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years?



PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES.

30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55.

Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed.

Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation.

SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m.

If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete.

The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk





/news/uk-england-lon





don-25549789


--


A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025.

Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities




,,
Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky.
Positively4thStreet.



.. Can't see it happening, given the disruption the construction would cause


I don't foresee any construction problems.. as for the willpower and money that's another matter..

Like most road/rail works.. prefabricated lightweight Cycle Superhighways would be erected above road/rail (or wherever) in the early hours of the night using specialised vehicles/cranes causing little or no disruption..

-

If we are heading for Gridlock Armageddon how would you avert it?

or in the case of a Cycle Superhighway divert over it..



,,
Don't know Dan if I'm honest,I've just moved to a city which has been completely by passed (no pun intended) by the motorway trunk system,and has only a quarter of its ring road completed,and the traffic is far worse than anything I've ever experienced in Southampton.
All I can say about the cycleways, is they would be a lovely idea,as its pretty obvious from all the above posts,that cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix,not in this country anyway,which judging by what I've seen in the Netherlands,where it works so well,is probably a cultural thing.
Yeah, our road planners are just money pinchin tw@ts.
,,

Positively4thStreet says.. Cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix


Given Elevated Cycle Superhighways are 20 plus years away..

Fair enough the stat's speak for themselves, car diver 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/sli
ghtly 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 divers ( 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.. a serious injury claim 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]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year. The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over. The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes. Yeah.. bring on the fees.. ,,,[/p][/quote]Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.[/p][/quote]Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon? Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years? PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES. 30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55. Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed. Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation. SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m. If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete. The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lon don-25549789 -- A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025. Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities ,,[/p][/quote]Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky.[/p][/quote]Positively4thStreet. .. Can't see it happening, given the disruption the construction would cause I don't foresee any construction problems.. as for the willpower and money that's another matter.. Like most road/rail works.. prefabricated lightweight Cycle Superhighways would be erected above road/rail (or wherever) in the early hours of the night using specialised vehicles/cranes causing little or no disruption.. - If we are heading for Gridlock Armageddon how would you avert it? or in the case of a Cycle Superhighway divert over it.. ,,[/p][/quote]Don't know Dan if I'm honest,I've just moved to a city which has been completely by passed (no pun intended) by the motorway trunk system,and has only a quarter of its ring road completed,and the traffic is far worse than anything I've ever experienced in Southampton. All I can say about the cycleways, is they would be a lovely idea,as its pretty obvious from all the above posts,that cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix,not in this country anyway,which judging by what I've seen in the Netherlands,where it works so well,is probably a cultural thing.[/p][/quote]Yeah, our road planners are just money pinchin tw@ts.[/p][/quote],, Positively4thStreet says.. Cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix Given Elevated Cycle Superhighways are 20 plus years away.. Fair enough the stat's speak for themselves, car diver 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/sli ghtly 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 divers ( 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.. a serious injury claim 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

10:56pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15 today, cyclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change to green, cyclist pulls away and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, the taxi cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault?
Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15 today, cyclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change to green, cyclist pulls away and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, the taxi cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

11:50pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year.


The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over.


The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes.


Yeah.. bring on the fees..



,,,
Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.
Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon?


Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years?



PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES.

30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55.

Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed.

Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation.

SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m.

If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete.

The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk





/news/uk-england-lon





don-25549789


--


A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025.

Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities




,,
Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky.
Positively4thStreet.



.. Can't see it happening, given the disruption the construction would cause


I don't foresee any construction problems.. as for the willpower and money that's another matter..

Like most road/rail works.. prefabricated lightweight Cycle Superhighways would be erected above road/rail (or wherever) in the early hours of the night using specialised vehicles/cranes causing little or no disruption..

-

If we are heading for Gridlock Armageddon how would you avert it?

or in the case of a Cycle Superhighway divert over it..



,,
Don't know Dan if I'm honest,I've just moved to a city which has been completely by passed (no pun intended) by the motorway trunk system,and has only a quarter of its ring road completed,and the traffic is far worse than anything I've ever experienced in Southampton.
All I can say about the cycleways, is they would be a lovely idea,as its pretty obvious from all the above posts,that cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix,not in this country anyway,which judging by what I've seen in the Netherlands,where it works so well,is probably a cultural thing.
Yeah, our road planners are just money pinchin tw@ts.
Positively4thStreet says.. Cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix



Something will have to change, Elevated Cycle Superhighways are 20 plus years away..


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.




,,



Apologies for a second post.. first attempt I don't think I made my case clear enough.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: I'd wouldn't mind paying a small fee for full access to all roads.. say £25.00 per year. The upside for me... I could cycle up to London (or any City) with a zero chance of being run over. The down side for motorists... a M3 Motorway lane with its own crash barriers set aside for electric or pedal bikes. Yeah.. bring on the fees.. ,,,[/p][/quote]Don't see why they don't do that or lay cycle only roads alongside all of the motorways and A-roads anyway with junctions in the same place as the junctions for the main road/motorway.[/p][/quote]Elevated cycle superhighways above Roads/Motorways maybe the answer to Gridlock Armageddon? Ginger.. when I was a kid I'd cycle over Portsdown Hill thinking one day an elevated sky cycle path could be built allowing me to freewheel down to Pompey or back to Southampton.. who knows given another 20 years? PLANS FOR 'CYCLE UTOPIA' ABOVE LONDON'S RAIL LINES. 30 December 2013 Last updated at 13:55. Proposed SkyCycle route Each route would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour, it is claimed. Plans to build a network of cycle paths high above the streets of London are being put forward for consultation. SkyCycle is a 136-mile (219 km) route, with the first phase, proposed from east London to Liverpool Street Station, costing more than £200m. If approved, the 10 routes would be built above existing rail lines and would take about 20 years to complete. The plans will be sent out to interested parties for feedback before a planning application is submitted. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lon don-25549789 -- A few good reasons why Southampton might be heading for Gridlock Armageddon.. from 31 million in 2007 the number of cars in the UK are predicted to rise to over 44 million by 2020 and further 6 million to 50 million by 2025. Add to that.. outside of London, Southampton is one of the UK's fastest-growing Cities ,,[/p][/quote]Unlikely,given the disruption the construction would cause to rail services.Can't see it happening,literally pie in the sky.[/p][/quote]Positively4thStreet. .. Can't see it happening, given the disruption the construction would cause I don't foresee any construction problems.. as for the willpower and money that's another matter.. Like most road/rail works.. prefabricated lightweight Cycle Superhighways would be erected above road/rail (or wherever) in the early hours of the night using specialised vehicles/cranes causing little or no disruption.. - If we are heading for Gridlock Armageddon how would you avert it? or in the case of a Cycle Superhighway divert over it.. ,,[/p][/quote]Don't know Dan if I'm honest,I've just moved to a city which has been completely by passed (no pun intended) by the motorway trunk system,and has only a quarter of its ring road completed,and the traffic is far worse than anything I've ever experienced in Southampton. All I can say about the cycleways, is they would be a lovely idea,as its pretty obvious from all the above posts,that cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix,not in this country anyway,which judging by what I've seen in the Netherlands,where it works so well,is probably a cultural thing.[/p][/quote]Yeah, our road planners are just money pinchin tw@ts.[/p][/quote]Positively4thStreet says.. Cycles and motor vehicles just don't mix Something will have to change, Elevated Cycle Superhighways are 20 plus years away.. 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. ,, Apologies for a second post.. first attempt I don't think I made my case clear enough. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree