Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:17:23 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:09:40 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Phil W Lee wrote:
d considered Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:42:37 +0000
(UTC) the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:50:28 +0100
Clive George wrote:
I think you've just discovered why they were riding where they
were - to stop you doing a dangerous overtake.
The lane was quite wide enough for cars to overtake safely if
they'd moved over to the normal position bikes tend to take. This
was a main A road to the M25, not a country lane.

You said "I wouldn't have given them much of a wide berth if I had".

It is completely irrelevant that it was a "main A road", since that
is a road they have just as much right to be using as you do (well,
strictly speaking, they have a right to use it, you are exercising a
privilege [the use of a motor vehicle] which can be withdrawn, so
they actually have MORE right than you to be there).
You live in a dream world. Cyclists pay **** all to use roads as
you well know. Motorists pay what 'normal' people [1] call Car Tax.

If you don't understand the concept, try the following quiz;

(A) Can you use a push bike on the roads without having to pay
anything specificly linked to its use?
Technically possible, but very difficult to achieve.
WRIGGLE ALERT

I reckon to spend about £200 per annum to keep my three bikes
roadworthy, and that is not taking into account depreciation.
But that wasn't the question was it ****wit? Which bit of 'specific tax'
were you too thick to understand?

17.5% of £200 is £35.
Think 'specific tax'. Motorists also pay VAT.

Motorists' VAT was in my calculation.

(B) Can you use a car [2] on the roads without having to pay anything
specificly linked to its use?
Technically possible, but very difficult to achieve.

I pay £190 per annum VED; maybe £300 per annum for MOT and service, of
which £52.50 is VAT; 75 litres of fuel @ £1.14 = £85.50 of which £15
is VAT and £44.21 duty.

That comes to a shade over £300.
That equates to your payment of motorists tax.

Yes, I pay to use the roads twice, once as a motorist and once as a
cyclist.

Think 'specific tax'. In the case of cyclists that equates to **** all.

VED and fuel duty go into the general pot.

So does VAT.

But VED ("road tax" in everyday language) and the various taxes on motor fuel
are specifically levied on road use. Don't use a vehicle on the road and you
aren't asked for them.

Cue bleating from TC about petrol lawnmowers...

mileburner wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:48:49 +0100
"mileburner" wrote:
So you *were* suggesting that there is entirely different rules for road
positioning for cars and bikes. Thank you for admitting that. Next week we
can cover road positioning for busses and lorries.
Well of course I bloody well was! Are you seriously suggesting bikes
should
sit in the middle of the road blocking the traffic when they can move over
and let it pass? Don't be an ass.

While this may sound rather controversial, if there is not enough room to be
overtaken safely, you should ride drive etc in the centre of the lane.

What is this "lane" business?

Where a road is marked in lanes, one should use the one nearest to the left
hand kerb unless overtaking.

Single-carriageway roads are not usually marked in lanes unless exceptionally
wide. The white line down the crown of the road is not a lane marker.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...

God had the final word though when the same thief tried to steal live
cable and fried to death a few weeks later.
Ohdearmewhatashamenevermind.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:13:54 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:17:23 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:09:40 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Phil W Lee wrote:
d considered Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:42:37 +0000
(UTC) the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:50:28 +0100
Clive George wrote:
I think you've just discovered why they were riding where they
were - to stop you doing a dangerous overtake.
The lane was quite wide enough for cars to overtake safely if
they'd moved over to the normal position bikes tend to take. This
was a main A road to the M25, not a country lane.

You said "I wouldn't have given them much of a wide berth if I had".

It is completely irrelevant that it was a "main A road", since that
is a road they have just as much right to be using as you do (well,
strictly speaking, they have a right to use it, you are exercising a
privilege [the use of a motor vehicle] which can be withdrawn, so
they actually have MORE right than you to be there).
You live in a dream world. Cyclists pay **** all to use roads as
you well know. Motorists pay what 'normal' people [1] call Car Tax.

If you don't understand the concept, try the following quiz;

(A) Can you use a push bike on the roads without having to pay
anything specificly linked to its use?
Technically possible, but very difficult to achieve.
WRIGGLE ALERT

I reckon to spend about £200 per annum to keep my three bikes
roadworthy, and that is not taking into account depreciation.
But that wasn't the question was it ****wit? Which bit of 'specific tax'
were you too thick to understand?

17.5% of £200 is £35.
Think 'specific tax'. Motorists also pay VAT.

Motorists' VAT was in my calculation.

(B) Can you use a car [2] on the roads without having to pay anything
specificly linked to its use?
Technically possible, but very difficult to achieve.

I pay £190 per annum VED; maybe £300 per annum for MOT and service, of
which £52.50 is VAT; 75 litres of fuel @ £1.14 = £85.50 of which £15
is VAT and £44.21 duty.

That comes to a shade over £300.
That equates to your payment of motorists tax.

Yes, I pay to use the roads twice, once as a motorist and once as a
cyclist.

Think 'specific tax'. In the case of cyclists that equates to **** all.

VED and fuel duty go into the general pot.

So does VAT.

But VED ("road tax" in everyday language) and the various taxes on motor fuel
are specifically levied on road use. Don't use a vehicle on the road and you
aren't asked for them.

Is that true. I genuinely don't know. Can a vehicle that is
exclusively used on a race track, for example, claim a fuel duty
rebate? I know that certain farm vehicles get discounted fuel duty.

Cue bleating from TC about petrol lawnmowers...

"Phil W Lee" phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote in message
...
"Brimstone" considered Tue, 30 Mar 2010
09:01:37 +0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote in message
. ..
"Brimstone" considered Mon, 29 Mar 2010
16:58:58 +0100 the perfect time to write:



"David" wrote in message
...
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
When the appointment is the arrival time of an aircraft on which a
venerable, arthritic and incontinent close relative is travelling
rejection is not always an option.


The plane arrived an hour early!!

Exactly, it was not of the complainants choosing.

Due to this it's then OK to drive like a **** to save your relative
****ting themselves when they wouldn't expect you to be there for
another
hour anyway?
No it's not OK to drive like a ****, but we've only got the complainants
word for it that he was.

If the relative is expecting one to be there to meet them off the plane
then
that is when one should be there. The clock time is immaterial.

If the relative is expecting someone to be there to meet them in
advance of the time they could reasonably be expected to be there,
they are living in cloud cuckoo land. Pandering to their unrealistic
expectation will only serve to reinforce their delusions.

Someone who is physically and mentally fragile needs the care and
attention
of someone they know. Only a jerk would consider them to have "delusions".

And if they are that fragile, it is foolish to wait until the last
minute to leave to meet them - the safe and sensible action would be
to aim to arrive at the airport in advance of any possible arrival
time, not just the scheduled one.

And if the flight is brought forward several hours?

How far in advance should one get there, a day, two days?

I am reminded of the old saying that lack of forward planning on your
part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

Has anyone said otherwise (other than the OP who is a registered
self-centered idiot.)

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:45:57 +0100, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

"mileburner" considered Tue, 30 Mar 2010
10:38:26 +0100 the perfect time to write:


"Happi Monday" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/2010 19:12, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Its not your job to teach motorists how to drive. They have passed a
test
of competence

Advocating running cyclists down and/or killing them, hardly sounds like a
competent motorist, tested or otherwise. It's more like the ramblings of a
total ****wit.

sigh

The Madman is always the last to know.

They do say, so long as you question your own sanity, you must be sane.
Medway does not question his own sanity.

I don't think anyone here questions his sanity either

There is no sanity. There are only varying degrees of insanity ;-)

mileburner wrote:
"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...

Yes, I pay to use the roads twice, once as a motorist and once as a
cyclist.

Only twice Tom?

You are lucky.

I pay as a motorist, cyclist, homeowner, earner, saver, spender, the
list goes on...

Motorists pay as motorists, homeowners, earners, savers, spenders. And they
pay a spefic tax to use the roads.

What part of that are you too terminally stupid to understand?


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.

mileburner wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:33:51 +0100
"mileburner" wrote:
The "penny on a litre" due in April is pathetic. In a fairly
economical car
that is 1p per 10 miles. This Labour government are pandering to the
system-sucking right wing scum

Yeah , all those people living in council estates or 1 bedroom flats
who can just about afford to run a car and make ends meet are all
right wing scum.

Like Bloater and Medway, they read "The Sun". They should quit
smoking, ditch the car and get some exercise.

A psychic ******, whatever next? How do you know what I read? Or if I
smoke?

Stick to knitting your carbon free organic fairtrade yoghurt you
tosser.

Mmm... vegeburgers and lentils.

No wonder you like a lot of space around you. Your farts & breath must be
lethal.

mileburner wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:15:04 +0100
"mileburner" wrote:
Yeah , all those people living in council estates or 1 bedroom
flats who can just about afford to run a car and make ends meet
are all right wing scum.

Like Bloater and Medway, they read "The Sun". They should quit
smoking, ditch the car and get some exercise.

I don't read comics, nor do I smoke and I've been weight training
for 20 years.
Yet I drive a car. How does that dovetail with your neat little
compartmentalisation?

Why is it then that you come across as a weedy little bloke with
twitch and a chip on his shoulder?

Why do you come over as a complete tosser?


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
mileburner wrote:
"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...

Yes, I pay to use the roads twice, once as a motorist and once as a
cyclist.

Only twice Tom?

You are lucky.

I pay as a motorist, cyclist, homeowner, earner, saver, spender, the
list goes on...

Motorists pay as motorists, homeowners, earners, savers, spenders. And
they pay a spefic tax to use the roads.

That's their choice.

What part of that are you too terminally stupid to understand?

If people pay money to the government that they don't have to, who is it
that's stupid?