Unlit cyclist attacks motorist with bicycle

"JNugent" wrote
On 22/04/2015 11:37, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote
On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you don't
have a car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...

...ah yes, sponging.

You really are dim, aren't you?

Clearly not

The Road Tax on my wife's car is paid from our joint income, so the Road
Tax is paid, as is the fuel tax. It matters not a jot who pays it.

Right, so in one argument you don't have a car. In this one you do. You
need
to decide which one.

That is a complete non-sequitur.

Does your spouse's underwear - even if bought with your wages whilst they
have the role of a stay-at-home homemaker and child-raiser - belong to
you?

That is a complete non-sequitur.

We have a car. The registration document has my name on it as registered
keeper insurance has me as main driver and my wife as named driver. All
money
comes from a joint account. It should be fairly obvious that rather than
using my car, my wife uses our car.

We each have a bicycle. We both have third party insurance specific for
cycle use. All money comes from a joint account. We cannot use each other's
for size reasons so she uses her bicycle and I use mine.

I suggest you go back to earlier posts where Medway said he does not
have a car but uses his wife's. That looks pretty specific. Until it becomes
convenient to say otherwise.

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:30:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

halfwit?

Why do people insult others?

People naturally make comparisons to other people. And these comparisons
can often make us feel worse about ourselves or better about ourselves.
As we generally prefer to feel good, we are prone to making downward
comparisons, or comparisons that enable us to look down on other people.

Steady on - I rather thought he was being too generous, not insulting.
I think you owe him an apology.

On 23/04/2015 16:15, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
On 22/04/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:

What is this magic spending which removes a car from in front of you
wherever you go?

It doesn't necessarily need "spending". Taxes (ie, none to use a bicycle,
high to use a car) might be one of the incentives for some to move from one
to the other.

Are people really that cheap and mean, that they will swap from an
adequate means of transport to one that cannot handle (to say the least)
the full range of transport duties?

And how do you judge the effect confidently enough to assert that people
have been that miserly, enough to reduce the number of vehicles in front
of yours?

"Kerr Mudd-John" wrote in message
newsp.xxiiyffqmsr2db@dell3100...
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:48:24 +0100, Mr Pounder
wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...

[ a snip!]

Do you have the same problem overtaking a horse?

A horse is not classed as a road vehicle, a child's toy is.
A horse and rider are treated with respect and admiration. A cyclist is
treated as being a piece of ****, which they are.
A horse and the rider will almost certainly carry 3rd party liability
insurance. A cyclist will almost certainly not.
The rider of the horse will be competent to ride on the public highway. A
cyclist is not.
It is forbidden by law to ride a horse on the footpath. Horse riders do
not
ride on the footpath. Cyclists do ride on the footpath.
I could go on.
It seems very obvious that a horse is more respected and law abiding
than a
cyclist.
This shows what a load of ******s cyclists really are.

Tell me more about this "rational thought" that you once had.

It is very obviously displayed in my above posting.
Tell us how many driving lessons you had to take. I remember your whining
post in the driving group.
Oh, how we laughed!

On 23/04/2015 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/04/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:

What is this magic spending which removes a car from in front of you
wherever you go?

It doesn't necessarily need "spending". Taxes (ie, none to use a bicycle,
high to use a car) might be one of the incentives for some to move from one
to the other.


But alas people don't want to.

"For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
regular basis."

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 23/04/2015 11:19, Bod wrote:
On 23/04/2015 09:59, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:58:11 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 23/04/2015 08:28, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 23/04/2015 08:23, Bod wrote:
On 22/04/2015 22:24, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 18:42, Bod wrote:
On 22/04/2015 18:10, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 18:00, Bod wrote:
On 22/04/2015 17:39, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/04/2015 11:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that
you don't have a car and use your wife's. A word comes to
mind...

...ah yes, sponging.

Cyclists should do the same.

A person on a bicycle is not a car in front. That is an
efficient use of the taxes I pay for my car.

In what way do your taxes flow to the cyclist?

What an odd question. Not having a car in front is of benefits
me when I am in my car.


Far worse to have cyclist in front doing 12mph, or if going up a
slight incline, 8mph.


Have you not mastered how to overtake yet?

You mean "safely overtake"?

In which case, yes.

When overtaking a dangerously slow and unstable vehicle,
susceptible to violent direction changes due to slight winds or
minor road imperfections - in other words, a push bike - you have
to be very careful.

Otherwise they whinge endlessly about wanting a 3 metre safety
space.



Do you have the same problem overtaking a horse?

Nice try, no cigar.

(1) There are very few equestrians on our roads, compared to the
thousands of road lice cyclists.
(2) People like horses and hate cyclists.



There are no cyclist haters around here.

Silly me!

People just act courteously with each other. You must live in a rough
area. I've never encountered a problem on the roads whether I'm
driving or riding my bike in this neck of the woods.

Where's that? Fantasy Island?


No, just a village with decent human beings.

Are you implying that the Medway Handyman is indecent?

No, but he seems to have a disturbing interest in childrens toy bicycles.

All bicycles are children's toys. Most people grow out of them.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 23/04/2015 16:16, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 22/04/2015 11:37, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote
On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you don't
have a car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...

...ah yes, sponging.

You really are dim, aren't you?

Clearly not

The Road Tax on my wife's car is paid from our joint income, so the Road
Tax is paid, as is the fuel tax. It matters not a jot who pays it.

Right, so in one argument you don't have a car. In this one you do. You
need to decide which one.

That is a complete non-sequitur.
Does your spouse's underwear - even if bought with your wages whilst they
have the role of a stay-at-home homemaker and child-raiser - belong to
you?

That is a complete non-sequitur.

It is not, as will be demonstrated.

We have a car. The registration document has my name on it as registered
keeper insurance has me as main driver and my wife as named driver. All
money comes from a joint account. It should be fairly obvious that rather than
using my car, my wife uses our car.

Not in the slightest. You are the keeper and unless you have some sort
of official memorandum of agreement regarding shared ownership, it
doesn't matter how you refer to your car. Or how you refer to the car
owned by the wife of Mr MH.

The issue of joint accounts is irrelevant. When my wife uses our joint
accounts to buy items for her own use, I would not refer to those things
as "mine".

We each have a bicycle. We both have third party insurance specific for
cycle use. All money comes from a joint account. We cannot use each other's
for size reasons so she uses her bicycle and I use mine.

I suggest you go back to earlier posts where Medway said he does not
have a car but uses his wife's. That looks pretty specific. Until it becomes
convenient to say otherwise.

I see nothing odd about his using his wife's car. I use my wife's car if
it's "first in the drive". We don't give that a second thought.

I don't even see anything odd about the fact that any person in his
position may refer to the vehicle being "our car" (eg, at a garage or in
a car-park) despite it legally belonging to, and registered in the name
of, a spouse. We do exactly the same. I might even refer to my wife's
car as "my car" when that is more convenient in conversation than saying
"my wife's car".

"Yes officer, the oaf on the bicycle ran straight into the back of my
car when I stopped at the red traffic light".

"Well, I say 'my car', but it is actually my wife's car (for all the
difference that makes)".

"The Medway Handyman" wrote
On 23/04/2015 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/04/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:

What is this magic spending which removes a car from in front of you
wherever you go?

It doesn't necessarily need "spending". Taxes (ie, none to use a bicycle,
high to use a car) might be one of the incentives for some to move from
one to the other.

But alas people don't want to.

"the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the
largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of
hissing."

The sound of rumbling engines still drowns out any hissing.

But some people want to use a bicycle.

"JNugent" wrote in
On 23/04/2015 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
On 22/04/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:

What is this magic spending which removes a car from in front of you
wherever you go?

It doesn't necessarily need "spending". Taxes (ie, none to use a bicycle,
high to use a car) might be one of the incentives for some to move from
one
to the other.

Are people really that cheap and mean, that they will swap from an
adequate means of transport to one that cannot handle (to say the least)
the full range of transport duties?

Don't be so utterly dense. It's not all or nothing.

And how do you judge the effect confidently enough to assert that people
have been that miserly, enough to reduce the number of vehicles in front
of yours?

You obviously didn't notice that I said "might be one of the incentives"
above; this was deliberate. I don't really care what motives individuals
have. It only matters that there are people with sense enough to realise
that there are perfectly adequate alternatives to a car for some journeys.

As for your "miserly", you're really plumbing the depths. You do realise
it is no longer a stigma to buy some things from Lidl instead of
Waitrose?

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:16:13 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

All bicycles are children's toys. Most people grow out of them.

Thank God I am not most people. Children's toys are a very economical
delightful convenient viable form of transport for many things.