safety in numbers? Fail

On Wed, 30 May 2012 02:03:28 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

"'Hog" considered Tue, 29 May 2012
22:46:00 +0100 the perfect time to write:

JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2012 22:19, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W
wrote:

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.

So the bus and pickup drivers in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGI should be jailed and the
incompetent moron on a bike should get a bit of compo?

The thing that would make the biggest difference is mandatory
training for cyclists - why do so many oppose it so vehemently?

Becasue it isn't either necessary or desirable.
Or enforceable for that matter - cycling on the public highway is a
right, so you can't impose conditions.

Well you can impose conditions (and already do) of course, but you
have again evaded the question. In the clip shown at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGI do you believe both vehicle
drivers should have been jailed (as you want "automatic jail time for
any driver who hit a cyclist.")?

How much compo should the cyclist have got?

On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:46:53 -0700, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 30/05/2012 09:44, 'Hog wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Tue, 29 May 2012

I guess you are new around here Mr Hog, so perhaps I should explain that
Phil W Lee is the local nutter.

That's IOTTMCO, although a case could be made for
s/the/a

(I must say, these crossposts from ...cycling are entertaining, on a
boring afternoon.)

Thomas wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:46:53 -0700, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 30/05/2012 09:44, 'Hog wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Tue, 29 May 2012

I guess you are new around here Mr Hog, so perhaps I should explain
that Phil W Lee is the local nutter.

That's IOTTMCO, although a case could be made for
s/the/a

(I must say, these crossposts from ...cycling are entertaining, on a
boring afternoon.)

Well quite and we appreciate the nutters in the long grass too

--
Hog

Remember the 4 "F" rule:
If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me
....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off

Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 30/05/2012 05:33, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Wed, 30 May 2012
01:23:47 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Tue, 29 May 2012
22:41:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Most road users pay for the privilege of using the road. He who
pays comes first. Those who don't go to the end of the queue.
Long past time the RTA was updated.

Is the wrong answer.
He who has the right comes first, he who does not have the right
can be made to pay, and comes last.

Where do you think all those roads came from?

Your question does not have an obvious target?
It only matters who paid for them. The VED victims, paid several
times over.
To the tune of less than half of the cost imposed on society by their
motor vehicle use.

Let me turn it around another way. Leave things as they are and
scrap VED and fuel duty.

Hell no - put them up so they pay the full cost of the damage they
cause.

Complete & utter bollox again.

In 2008-09 motorists paid £30.2 billion in motoring taxes.
In that year,1 the cost of road building was £9.1 billion and the
social cost of greenhouse gas emissions from road transport was £3.2
billion. That implies motoring taxes were excessive by £17.9 billion.

We know that, but it's fun to watch the children play

--
Hog

Remember the 4 "F" rule:
If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me
....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off

On May 30, 9:42*pm, Thomas wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:46:53 -0700, Dave - Cyclists VOR

wrote:
On 30/05/2012 09:44, 'Hog wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
*considered Tue, 29 May 2012

I guess you are new around here Mr Hog, so perhaps I should explain that
Phil W Lee is the local nutter.

That's IOTTMCO, although a case could be made for
s/the/a

(I must say, these crossposts from ...cycling are entertaining, on a
boring afternoon.)

Thank you, but please do not go to the trouble of organising any joint
country rides.

On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:19:55 -0700, Squashme wrote:

On May 30, 9:42 pm, Thomas wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:46:53 -0700, Dave - Cyclists VOR

wrote:
On 30/05/2012 09:44, 'Hog wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Tue, 29 May 2012

I guess you are new around here Mr Hog, so perhaps I should explain
that
Phil W Lee is the local nutter.

That's IOTTMCO, although a case could be made for
s/the/a

(I must say, these crossposts from ...cycling are entertaining, on a
boring afternoon.)

Thank you, but please do not go to the trouble of organising any joint
country rides.

What are you, a narc?

On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:53:05 +0100, "'Hog"
wrote:

You are obviously another red light jumping pavement cycling ****. You ****.

Hah! The nearest red light to here is the one in yo'mamma's window.

How about we make cycling on the road a granted provision on your driving
licence ;o)

We don' need no steenkeen lice.
750W of sheer powa, boy.

On May 30, 2:32*pm, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

At the moment, cyclists do not present sufficient threat to drivers to
waken them from their slumbers.

And what's wrong with a Clot 45 strapped to the tank?

If someone were driving a tank, i'd more than likely give way to
it ...

Paul.

On 31/05/2012 07:00, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Wed, 30 May 2012 13:42:06 -0700
the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:46:53 -0700, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 30/05/2012 09:44, 'Hog wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Tue, 29 May 2012

I guess you are new around here Mr Hog, so perhaps I should explain that
Phil W Lee is the local nutter.

That's IOTTMCO, although a case could be made for
s/the/a

(I must say, these crossposts from ...cycling are entertaining, on a
boring afternoon.)

You should check through the medjob's (that's "dave") prior posts to
get some isight into it's level of stupidity.

I'll save you the trouble & list some of ****** Lee's little gems;

----------------------------------------------------------------

If you find 2 abreast cyclists more obstructive than single file ones,
you must have been intending to pass dangerously close anyway.

If you claim to be held up by a cyclist, you are admitting to dangerous
driving, since the only way you could be held up is if your intention
was to pass dangerously close.

Commenting on a legal gate in a public park: I'd think it comes under
the heading of "causing an obstruction", and should be investigated by
the police as such.

If Traffic Lights are not working, then you can telephone the police for
permission to proceed. If this is not forthcoming, then you can reports
it as "unlawful detention".

The police have clearly not been persuaded by the Law Lords, and still
try to treat the procession as unlawful. In this they are now equally
clearly in contempt of court.

It could usefilly sic be pointed out to motorists that if they are
within range of a swung D lock, they are too close, and could be held
liable for any collision (including with the D lock).

If you are watching your kids in the rear view mirror, you are not
driving safely or legally.

I would find it very hard to condemn anyone who beat the van driver
into permanent inability to drive

I hope he hits you next, then we can all have a good laugh.
With any luck, you will be a dribbling vegetable in permanent pain
afterwards, but will continue your sad existence for many painful decades.

If the *******s won't do anything about the taxi driver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. He'll never drive a taxi
again.

---------------------------------------------------------------


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 31/05/2012 06:58, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Wed, 30 May 2012
22:05:41 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 30/05/2012 05:33, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Wed, 30 May 2012
01:23:47 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Tue, 29 May 2012
22:41:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Most road users pay for the privilege of using the road. He who
pays comes first. Those who don't go to the end of the queue.
Long past time the RTA was updated.

Is the wrong answer.
He who has the right comes first, he who does not have the right
can be made to pay, and comes last.

Where do you think all those roads came from?

Your question does not have an obvious target?
It only matters who paid for them. The VED victims, paid several
times over.
To the tune of less than half of the cost imposed on society by their
motor vehicle use.

Let me turn it around another way. Leave things as they are and
scrap VED and fuel duty.

Hell no - put them up so they pay the full cost of the damage they
cause.

Complete& utter bollox again.

In 2008-09 motorists paid £30.2 billion in motoring taxes.
In that year,1 the cost of road building was £9.1 billion and the
social cost of greenhouse gas emissions from road transport was £3.2
billion. That implies motoring taxes were excessive by £17.9 billion.

We know that, but it's fun to watch the children play

Indeed, they like to ignore all the other costs of motoring, which
exceed revenues by several times.

Show us the invoices then ****wit.

Little details like the huge proportion of the NHS cost that's due to
motoring, or the congestion, rescue services, policing, house
devaluation from pollution. . .

But as you so often remind us - but only when it suits your case, taxes
aren't ring fenced, it all comes out of a central pot.

Still, "Dave" can probably only cope with one cost in his brain cell
at a time.

Can't answer the question then?

He hasn't even included the cost of road repairs and maintenance!

Included. Try again **** for brains.

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