Cyclist terrorist

PeterG wrote:

I suggest that you check this group posts for motorist terrorist, the
results you get may help you to see the reason for my post.
Until then just lurk, unless you are Doug in disguise.

Unfortunately, this group is, for me, uk.rec.cycling on which I suspect
the aforementioned thread did not appear.

I do, on a separate tack, find it odd that some people whom I know and
respect from other groups behave completely differently here.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire http://www.shrimper.org.uk

Sir Jeremy wrote:

On 7 Oct, 10:13, Brian Robertson wrote:

Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for
driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he
was driving unsafely.


Remind us who got hurt?

In this case, thankfully, just the driver.

Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire http://www.shrimper.org.uk

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:53:57 -0700, Sir Jeremy
wrote:

So he's the only victim then?

Not at all. We taxpayers have had to pay for his prosecution and his
incarceration. Bloody waste of money -- he should be shot and his
family forced to pay for the bullet.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:35:01 -0700, Sir Jeremy
wrote:

Remind us who got hurt?

It might be that no one gets hurt if a cyclist rides on the hard
shoulder around the M25. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:32:21 -0700, Sir Jeremy
wrote:

OTOH car drivers (who subsidise cyclists by paying VAT and VED) pay
for everything from the infrastructure to the NHS are portrayed as the
devil incarnate.

Are you suggesting that no cyclist pays VAT and VED?

On 7 Oct, 16:03, Marc Brett wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:53:57 -0700, Sir Jeremy
wrote:

So he's the only victim then?

Not at all. We taxpayers have had to pay for his prosecution and his
incarceration. Bloody waste of money -- he should be shot and his
family forced to pay for the bullet.


Don't sit on the fence, let us know what you really think

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:52:15 -0700, Sir Jeremy
wrote:

On 7 Oct, 10:38, Brian Robertson wrote:
Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 7 Oct, 02:04, JNugent
wrote:
Timothy Baldwin wrote:
In message . com, Adam Lea
wrote:
Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at
night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of
lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All you have
to do is fit them and switch them on.
I've seen a cyclist with a hand-held torch as their light source.
Shame on you for such a calumny.

Push-bike-riders are the absolute salt of the earth. They'd never do
such a thing. Ask Guy if you don't believe me.

its sheer arrogant selfishness- Cyclists think that they can do
whatever they like, break every traffic law, kill peedestrians and yet
they somehow are saving the planet by their behaviour and are
completly beyond reproach.
OTOH car drivers (who subsidise cyclists by paying VAT and VED) pay
for everything from the infrastructure to the NHS are portrayed as the
devil incarnate.

Don't be so UTTERLY stupid. That's like me turning round and posting
that no motorists contribute anything to society because a minority of
them drive around without tax, insurance and MOTs. We ARE tax payers,
you know. You want us all to sell our bikes and get cars so that your
journey to work takes even longer? It is obvious that you haven't got a
clue what cycling is like or the dangers that we face from people like
you everyday. For Christ's sake, you are as bad as that loser, Doug. I'm
only trying to get to bloody work and keep fit. That doesn't make me the
arch enemy of the motorist, anymore than you getting behind the wheel of
your car makes you my enemy. The roads are big enough for all of us.

Brian.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



You've missed the point, I actually agree with your last two
sentences, but
the attitudes displayed by Chapman, Hansen , that ****** Spindrift et
al are exactly that car drivers are the cyclists enemy and that
cyclists have carte blanche to do whatever they like. Even when
someone is killed by a cyclist, it somewow doesn't matter so much
because car drivers are responsible for the deaths of more people than
cyclists are.

You miss the point.

No one condones the cyclist's behaviour, and we all hope that he
receives an appropriate punishment. But let us also remember the 10
or so people killed by motor vehicles every day, and be thankful that
they don't all result in a 100 message flamefest.

As for tax- car drivers make a massive contribution to the Exchequer
and subsidise the entire economy.

How many adult cyclists do you know who don't own a car? And do you
think that the car free percentage of cyclists is any higher than the
adult population as a whole?

A recent study reported that cyclists have an above average income. If
it follows that cyclists, being more affluent, are more likely to be
car owners, then cyclists contribute more to the exchecher through VED
than non-cyclists.

On 7 Oct, 13:47, Adam Lea wrote:
On 7 Oct, 10:52, Sir Jeremy wrote:



As for tax- car drivers make a massive contribution to the Exchequer
and subsidise the entire economy.-

They also contribute to a lot of undesirable side effects which cost
taxpayers money to mitigate, which, if some figures are to be believed
is greater than the tax contribution from motorists.

Thus I am not sure where you get that statement from.


Not a direct quote, but a summary of comments Tony Blair made during
the fuel blockades in 2000 when interviewed on Radio 4

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:52:55 GMT,
(Ekul Namsob) wrote:

Sir Jeremy wrote:

On 7 Oct, 10:13, Brian Robertson wrote:

Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for
driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he
was driving unsafely.


Remind us who got hurt?

In this case, thankfully, just the driver.

And his employer, his family, and the taxpayers who had to pay for
dealing with him. The driver /profited/ by being taught a valuable
lesson.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:35:01 -0700, Sir Jeremy
wrote:


Remind us who got hurt?


It might be that no one gets hurt if a cyclist rides on the hard
shoulder around the M25. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Absolutely correct.

But the cyclist in that situation would (at worst) simply be summonsed
for a breach of motorway regulations, and not for "dangerous cycling".

I don't have the citation, but I recall that it was held at appeal -
decades ago - that a high speed in excess of the limit was not
necessarily "dangerous" within the meaning of "dangerous driving".

I suspect that the driver of that exoticar decided to plead to DD in
order not to be done for TWOC. Apart from anything else, a record of a
motoring offence would not debar him from some things that a record of
something dishonest (like TWOC) would - like entry to the USA, for
instance. Copping for DD might have been a shrewd compromise for him.